Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To zoom in or out on PEP-Web…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Are you having difficulty reading an article due its font size? In order to make the content on PEP-Web larger (zoom in), press Ctrl (on Windows) or ⌘Command (on the Mac) and the plus sign (+). Press Ctrl (on Windows) or ⌘Command (on the Mac) and the minus sign (-) to make the content smaller (zoom out). To go back to 100% size (normal size), press Ctrl (⌘Command on the Mac) + 0 (the number 0).

Another way on Windows: Hold the Ctrl key and scroll the mouse wheel up or down to zoom in and out (respectively) of the webpage. Laptop users may use two fingers and separate them or bring them together while pressing the mouse track pad.

Safari users: You can also improve the readability of you browser when using Safari, with the Reader Mode: Go to PEP-Web. Right-click the URL box and select Settings for This Website, or go to Safari > Settings for This Website. A large pop-up will appear underneath the URL box. Look for the header that reads, “When visiting this website.” If you want Reader mode to always work on this site, check the box for “Use Reader when available.”

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

Rusbridger, R. (1988). Josephine Klein: Our Need for Others and its Roots in Infancy. Published by Tavistock Publications, 1987. Hardback, £29.95. Paperback, £14.95.. J. Child Psychother., 14(2):109-110.

(1988). Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 14(2):109-110

Josephine Klein: Our Need for Others and its Roots in Infancy. Published by Tavistock Publications, 1987. Hardback, £29.95. Paperback, £14.95.

Review by:
Richard Rusbridger

As Josephine Klein shows in this excellent book, there is a great deal of convergence between apparently different psychoanalytic theories.

The field of psychoanalytic psychotherapy is notable for the number and apparent diversity of its theories. Working on the common foundation of Freud's discoveries, subsequent writers have described their own insights. They have often developed their own language to do this, sometimes very off-putting language at that (“object”, “paranoid-schizoid position”, “ocnophilia”). It is then hard, perhaps both for each writer and for someone wanting to learn about the field, to see how new ideas can contribute to earlier ones, rather than necessarily conflict with them. The accounts of early life by, for example, Winnicott, Fairbairn, Klein and Kohut can seem to lie awkwardly together, if at all.

Some features of our field, in addition to idiosyncratic use of language, make it hard to stand back and see what different theories may have in common. For instance, there is a tendency to follow patterns of allegiance to particular thinkers and groups of thinkers rather than to others. This, a feature of any institution or group, is driven and maintained in the field of psychotherapy by the loyalty felt by therapists towards their analysts and the theoretical “family” to which their analyst belongs. At its most inhibiting, this allegiance, together with the sheer difficulty of communicating about such an intensely private experience as psychotherapy, can lead to writers falling back on formulae and referring to “group” authors in order to establish their credibility as a group member.

[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 © 2020, 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.