Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Letters to the editor

Letters to the editor 116 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR concept rejected by Homey. Rather than view one child as fixated at the symbiotic subphase and the other at the rapprochement subphase, a Horney perspective might envision the first as struggling to prove his illu- sion of being fused with the mother, and the second as clinging in a rigid and indiscriminate quest to secure omnipotence over the idealized mother. I value Lemer's paper despite these differences. Homey wrote well before Mahler, Bowlby, and writers in object relations had prominently entered the psychoanalytic scene. In their emphasis on the interpersonal and the self, and in their comparative deemphasis of drive theory and clas- sic psychic structures, they clearly do invite comparison with Horney's views. Douglas H. Ingram, M.D. REFERENCES 1. Lerner, J. Homey theory and mother/child impact on early childhood, Am. J. Psychoanal., 43: 149-156, 1983. 2. Pine, F. On the pathology of the separation-individuation process as manifested in later clinical work: an attempt at delineation. Int. J. Psychoanal., 60: 225-242, 3. Rosenthal, H. On early alienation from the self. Am. J. Psychoanal., 43: 231-243, To the Editor: I appreciate Dr. Ingram's thoughtful comments on my paper, "Homey Theory and Mother/Child Impact on Early http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The American Journal of Psychoanalysis Springer Journals

Letters to the editor

Lerner, Joyce A.
The American Journal of Psychoanalysis , Volume 44 (1): 3 – Mar 1, 1984
Download PDF
3 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/letters-to-the-editor-JgHxiivOdI
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
1984 Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis
ISSN
0002-9548
eISSN
1573-6741
DOI
10.1007/BF01255427
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

116 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR concept rejected by Homey. Rather than view one child as fixated at the symbiotic subphase and the other at the rapprochement subphase, a Horney perspective might envision the first as struggling to prove his illu- sion of being fused with the mother, and the second as clinging in a rigid and indiscriminate quest to secure omnipotence over the idealized mother. I value Lemer's paper despite these differences. Homey wrote well before Mahler, Bowlby, and writers in object relations had prominently entered the psychoanalytic scene. In their emphasis on the interpersonal and the self, and in their comparative deemphasis of drive theory and clas- sic psychic structures, they clearly do invite comparison with Horney's views. Douglas H. Ingram, M.D. REFERENCES 1. Lerner, J. Homey theory and mother/child impact on early childhood, Am. J. Psychoanal., 43: 149-156, 1983. 2. Pine, F. On the pathology of the separation-individuation process as manifested in later clinical work: an attempt at delineation. Int. J. Psychoanal., 60: 225-242, 3. Rosenthal, H. On early alienation from the self. Am. J. Psychoanal., 43: 231-243, To the Editor: I appreciate Dr. Ingram's thoughtful comments on my paper, "Homey Theory and Mother/Child Impact on Early

Journal

The American Journal of Psychoanalysis – Springer Journals

Published: Mar 1, 1984

Keywords: Clinical Psychology; Psychotherapy; Psychoanalysis

References

  • Ego integration in child development
    D. W. Winnicott
  • The Technique and Practice of Psycho-Analysis
    R. Greenson