Reply to Karen Maroda's (2002) review of Heinz Kohut: The making of a psychoanalyst.

Strozier, Charles B.

doi:10.1037/0736-9735.20.2.378

Cited by 11 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One cannot know for sure. According to Sandmeyer and Kohut´s biographer Strozier (2001Strozier ( , 2003Strozier ( & 2007, Kohut may have had homosexual wishes himself. It is widely assumed, based on parallels in their histories, that his patient, "Mr Z" (Kohut, 1979), was in fact Kohut himself (Aron & Bromberg, 2019).…”

Section: Internalized Homophobiamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Reparative Therapy of Kohut and Miller

Fors¹

2019

Psychoanalysis, Self and Context

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay is a response to a paper by Janna Sandmeyer which received the Ralph Roughton award. Sandemeyer examines Jule Miller's 1985 article, "How Kohut actually worked," in which Miller describes Kohut's supervision of his work with a patient struggling with issues of homosexuality. I expand on Sandmeyer's comments on the heteronormativity and homophobia in Miller´s case description and make observations about the quality of the supervisory relationship between Miller and Kohut. I argue that this treatment was in reality reparative therapy and should be named as such. I posit a parallel to the conversion therapist David Matheson, who recently came out as gay, and suggest that if I am right, Miller and Kohut deserve our compassion. But to grieve and move beyond our crimes of the past, we also need to hold them, and our whole field, accountable. While acknowledging and admiring Sandmeyer´s important contributions to the exploration of heteronormativity and homophobia, I submit that the first step to empowerment and forgiveness is to call a reparative therapy what it was.

show abstract

Section: Internalized Homophobiamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Reparative Therapy of Kohut and Miller

Fors¹

2019

Psychoanalysis, Self and Context

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…

In responding to Strozier's (2003b) final reply, Stolorow corrects further mischaracterizations of his work. Strozier (2003aStrozier ( , 2003b once again rewrites history.

…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Final response to Strozier (2003b).

Stolorow¹

2003

Psychoanalytic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In responding to Strozier's (2003b) final reply, Stolorow corrects further mischaracterizations of his work. Strozier (2003aStrozier ( , 2003b once again rewrites history. What I have just elaborated and what he wrote in his footnote are completely different. Furthermore, I have never, not in my 1992 article (Stolorow, 1992) or at any other time, made the absurd claim of a "joint discovery of the empathic-introspective method." What I have said in a number of publications is that Kohut, by studying the relationship between mode of observation and theory in psychoanalysis, had in essence come to the same conclusion that George Atwood and I later arrived at by studying the subjective origins of psychological theories-namely, that psychoanalysis should be a depth psychology of personal experiencing. The "discovery" of empathic-introspective methodology extends back through Kohut to Freud, to the hermeneutic philosophies of Schleiermacher and Dilthey, and perhaps even to Aristotle's concept of "sympathetic understanding." But now I am again giving Strozier a history lesson. . .

show abstract

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The puzzles lay precisely with the people she actually interviewed (and perhaps a few others). It turns out that the complexity lies not only in Kohut, but also, as Strozier (2003) acknowledges, in his own relationships with people who had known Kohut well in their own ways. It seems to me that we may ask just why so many people in and around Chicago distrusted Strozier as a biographer, and why Tom Kohut wanted to be sure the letters came out so that people could form their own impressions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reply to Charles Strozier (2003).

Orange¹

2003

Psychoanalytic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Institute for the Psychoanalytic Study of SubjectivityAttention to complexity of motivation and meaning would improve both Strozier's biography of Heinz Kohut and his treatment of reviewer Karen Maroda (Strozier, 2003).I would like to reply to Charles Strozier's ( 2003) "Reply to Karen Maroda." Because I had such high hopes for this biography-I spent many days reading the manuscript and writing suggestions-and because I fear that I will be heard as simply running to the defense of my dear friend and colleague Bob Stolorow, it is with great reluctance that I enter this discussion at all. Nevertheless, my respect for Karen Maroda, who is not a self psychologist but who maintains, in my experience of her, a wonderful openness to dialogue with many voices in psychoanalysis, pushes me to reply to Strozier's characterization of her, as well as to say something, from a nonexpert's point of view, about biography.First, it seems to me that Maroda (2002) wanted to understand Kohut as a complicated person, and that she seems to have come to the biography more than ready to find and appreciate complexity. This is why she became suspicious when she found particular people close to Kohut so unequivocally dismissed. There was no need to interview people that the biographer had already presented as reliable witnesses. The puzzles lay precisely with the people she actually interviewed (and perhaps a few others). It turns out that the complexity lies not only in Kohut, but also, as Strozier (2003) acknowledges, in his own relationships with people who had known Kohut well in their own ways. It seems to me that we may ask just why so many people in and around Chicago distrusted Strozier as a biographer, and why Tom Kohut wanted to be sure the letters came out so that people could form their own impressions. It seems to me that the story of the biography must bear its own complexity, including the common desire to protect subjects of biography while their immediate family members are still living, as well as whatever attitudes Strozier brought into his relationships with potential sources of added perspective and information.Second, Maroda (2002) seems to me precisely to be rejecting what seem to her, and to her interviewees, overly simplified versions of Heinz Kohut-portraits of him as relentlessly self-absorbed, profoundly dishonest, and so on. When her interviewees characterize the biography as "unempathic," I imagine that they mean that they feel a refusal

show abstract

Reply to Karen Maroda's (2002) review of Heinz Kohut: The making of a psychoanalyst.

Cited by 11 publications

References 3 publications

The Reparative Therapy of Kohut and Miller

The Reparative Therapy of Kohut and Miller

Final response to Strozier (2003b).

Reply to Charles Strozier (2003).

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About