Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To see papers related to the one you are viewing…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

When there are articles or videos related to the one you are viewing, you will see a related papers icon next to the title, like this: RelatedPapers32Final3For example:

2015-11-06_09h28_31

Click on it and you will see a bibliographic list of papers that are related (including the current one). Related papers may be papers which are commentaries, responses to commentaries, erratum, and videos discussing the paper. Since they are not part of the original source material, they are added by PEP editorial staff, and may not be marked as such in every possible case.

 

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Spezzano, C.J. (2004). Bad feelings By Roy Schafer New York: Other Press. 2003. 164 pp.. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 85(3):776-779.

(2004). International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 85(3):776-779

Bad feelings By Roy Schafer New York: Other Press. 2003. 164 pp.

Review by:
Charles J. Spezzano

For at least a decade Roy Schafer has been involved in rethinking his theoretical position. This position, by his description, had been an amalgam of ‘Freud's writings, mid-twentieth century psychoanalytic ego psychology, and contemporary Freudian analysis’ (p. xiv). What he has been trying to integrate into that position (or, perhaps more accurately, what he has been using to reformulate that position) is the work of the Kleinian group in the British Society. Bad feelings is a book-length statement of this integration.

The crux of Schafer's Freudian-Kleinian position is that analysts must ‘maintain their analytic position through thick and thin’ (p. xi), as they encounter not patients' bad feelings but defenses against them. This does not seem to constitute a shift from Schafer's previous thinking, so what has study of the London Kleinians added? One might say, without being contentious, nothing, because Schafer himself emphasizes that he simply is ‘responding to a deep harmony that has not yet been fully theorized’ (p. xiv). Yet, it seems unlikely that Schafer has been working for over a decade simply to convince us that North American Freudians and London Kleinians have been approaching analysis in much the same way, while being prevented from realizing this by their happening to speak different languages.

One thing that seems to have become important to Schafer about the work of the London Kleinians is that he sees them as having conceptualized an approach to the more-than-oedipal/neurotic-conflicted patients—for whom, especially, some of Schafer's North American colleagues have been suggesting and describing technical flexibility—that allows for maintaining what Schafer views as an ‘analytic’ position even with these patients, whose unconscious psychologies inherently lead them to strongly challenge that position.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2019, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.