The Reparative Therapy of Kohut and Miller

Abstract

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.

Power Dynamics in the Clinical Situation: A Confluence of Perspectives

“…This area encompasses politically related, internalized processes that affect psychotherapy, including internalized oppression and internalized privilege (Davids, 2003(Davids, , 2011Fanon, 1952Fanon, /2008Fors, 2018aFors, , 2018cLaMothe, 2014;Layton 2002Layton , 2006aLayton , 2006bWeinberg, 1972). Writing on this topic addresses both conscious and unconscious themes related to how our social surround affects clinical functioning (e.g., Fors, 2018aFors, , 2018bFors, , 2018cFors, , 2019b.…”