If you accept the assumption that every 'separated piece and/or spin off' of Psychoanalysis remains at least a partly 'dissociated' piece of the whole of what could have been a much larger and perhaps better Psychoanalysis -- and you are not tied down by the 'political-narcissistic-righteous partisanship boundary games' (I call this 'conceptual narcissism') that comes from belonging to one particular brand of clinical psychology/psychotherapy -- and not another -- witness Freud vs. Adler, Freud vs. Jung, Freud vs. Ferenczi, Freud vs. Theodor Reik, Classical Psychoanalysis vs. Wilhelm Reik, Anna Freud vs. Melanie Klein, Classical Psychoanalysis vs. Fritz Perls, Classical Psychoanalysis vs. Jeffery Masson...and on and on we could go -- then this frees both you and I up to do a lot more 'cross-school theorizing and integrating of ideas' which dismisses 'one-school boundaries' in favor of 'all schools basically being mixed together into one big theoretical stewpot or chemistry/alchemy test tube -- and seeing what happens'.
This is why DGB Philosophy-Psychology used to be called 'Gap' or 'GAP' Psychology -- it philosophizes between the gaps of other philosophies and psychologies, and the first three integrations were: Gestalt Therapy, Adlerian Psychology, and Psychoanalysis -- which is how I got 'GAP' Psychology. But that was in the 1980s.
For DGB Philosophy-Psychology today, it doesn't matter whether an idea came/comes from any of Freud's following Psychoanalytic sub-theories: 1. Traumacy Theory; 2. Repression Theory; 3. Seduction Theory; 4. Screen Memory Theory; 5. Dream Interpretation Theory; 6. Oedipal Theory; 7. Childhood Sexuality Theory; 8. Transference Theory; 9. Narcissistic Theory; 10. Death-Instinct Theory; 11. Ego-Id-Superego Theory; 12. Ego-Splitting and Dissociation Theory; or 13. Object Relations Theory.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter if an idea comes from: 1. Adler; 2. Jung. 3. Rank; 4. Ferenczi; 5. Wilhelm Reik; 6. Theodor Reik; 7. Melanie Klein; 8. Sullivan; 9. Erickson; 10. Karen Horney, 11. Fairbairn; 12. Winnicott; 13. Guntrip; 14. Berne; 15. Erich Fromm; 16. Fritz Perls; 17. Albert Ellis, Aaron Beck, and Cognitive Therapy; 18. Kohut; 19. Rollo May, Victor Frankl, Abraham Maslow, and the whole 'third force' of Humanistic-Existentialism...and I have really only started...Add another one here: 20. The Primal Scream by Arthur Janov.
Everything I have listed above is more or less fair game for one massive integration project. It is just a matter of getting it done -- and finding logical coherence and functional benefit from doing so.
As long as proper academic acknowledgment of the origin of the idea in its historical and biographical context (as best as that can be ascertained), is respected and adhered to, then integrating new and old ideas is what both academic and pragmatic evolution is all about -- or at least should be all about; not anal-retentively holding on to old, stagnant, out-dated boundaries and/or paradigms that no longer work, if they ever did. Call this latter habit 'conceptual bondage' under the roof and 'creaking construction' of 'conceptual narcissism'.
Life is alive and moving until it dies. So too should the concepts be that try to mimic and represent life until these concept -- and theories -- also die. Concepts and theories need to be flexible and moving in order to properly follow the life processes that they are trying to follow. Otherwise these concepts are likely to be 'rotting' -- and 'rotten' -- concepts and theories.
Freud's 'repression theory' was too rigid. So too was his 'traumacy theory'. So too was his 'seduction theory'. His 'screen memory' theory was probably the worst theory he ever invented. That one 'hit the garbage' with me the first time I read it. Freud's 'Oedipal Theory' was too rigid. So too was his 'Childhood Sexuality and Fantasy' Theory.
Freud's 'Dream Interpretation Theory' was too rigid; Erich Fromm's Dream Interpretation Theory was better in his book, 'The Forgotten Language'. Jung and Perls also made good additions to Dream Analysis and Dream Work.
Freud's 'Narcissistic Theory' is basically the starting point of all DGB Psycho-Theory. Combined with Freud's 'Transference Theory' -- re-worked with some serious Adlerian Theory thrown in to boot, also some Jungian Theory, some Fairbairnian Theory, some Kohutian Theory, some Bernean Theory and some Gestalt Theory. Call me the 'mad theoretical chemist or alchemist' in the middle of all these historical figures doing all the 'mad' -- and/or not so mad -- integrating. And let us not forget all the historical philosophers behind the psychologists who have also had their influence -- Spinoza, Schelling, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, Foucault, Derrida...
Once we have a decent working knowledge of some or many of the different brands of clinical psychology/psychotherapy listed above, then this frees us up to become much more creative in our theorizing about any particular topic such as the one we will extrapolate on here -- 'DGB Narcissistic-Transference Theory'.
It is kind of like learning a whole host of different languages -- say 5 to 10 main ones -- in order to more intelligently discuss language theory in general, and/or invent a new language that perhaps borrows from the (admittedly subjectively interpreted and evaluated) best 'pieces' of each particular language. Perhaps the deficiencies in one particular language could be/can be compensated for by one of the strengths in another particular language. Likewise with different schools of philosophy and/or psychology.
No longer do we need to feel imprisoned by what may be more or less called arbitrary parameters, boundaries, assumptions that limit us in our thinking and that could stop us from progressing onwards to 'the next Post-Hegelian humanistic-existential evolutionary level of development'. (Call this 'DGB Historical Existentialism and Evolutionary Theory' if you will) of whatever it is we are theorizing about -- in this case, transference theory.
Of course, this assumes that you buy into the dialectic assumptions of DGB Post-Hegelian Evolutionary Theory and Historical Existentialism -- which I am sure that not all of you will buy into this anymore than everyone after Hegel bought in completely (or at all) to his Dialectic Idealism and Historical Determinism.
Personally, I didn't/don't buy into all of Classical Hegelian Idealism and Dialectic Theory -- which is why I made the modifications I did to Hegelian Theory (less dialectic idealism and more dialectic realism).
Thus, I intend to run more or less roughshod over 'school-boundaries that lack existential, rational-empirical, and/or functional significance' in order to get to where I creatively and theoretically want to get to in the name of building the best conceptual/theoretical model of human psychological functioning that I can possibly put together.
Mathematically speaking, what I am doing here is similar to a game of combinations and permutations -- for every theoretical assumption and/or boundary that I/you/we change takes us down a new path, a new line of thinking. New conceptual structure takes us to new conceptual process and visa versa -- and both conceptual structure and conceptual process affect human existential structure and process -- i.e., the actual process and structure of living (such as in the therapeutic process).
For me -- and DGB Narcissistic Transference Theory -- everything starts with a single meeting in the Vienna Circle where Freud and Adler were actually in agreement with each other -- and Freud was impressed with Adler's work. The topic was 'narcissistic injury'.
I am going to start chopping up these longer essays that I have started writing here lately to make them more readable and comprehensible in one sitting.
Thus, we will stop here...and start with the topic of 'narcissistic (self-esteem) injury' in our next blog-meeting here together.
Good night,
-- dgb, June 22nd, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
