Abstract
As a psychologist grounded in and respectful of general psychology, and as a clinician who uses and teaches ego psychological theory, it seems to the author that Masek overstates the meaning and contribution of Kohut's work. As he points out, the current status of psychoanalysis—as theory and as praxis—is unparalleled for its "creative ferment". Indeed, the metaphor of identity crisis might well apply to the timing and severity of the upheavals confronting the psychoanalytic movement today. But that internal chaos is not wholly attributable to Kohut. Both ego psychology and object relations theory raise questions which jeopardize such fundamental tenets of Freudian theory as the dualistic theory of libidinal and aggressive drives; the primacy of Oedipal conflict in the etiology of psychopathology; the neutrality and impersonal detachment of the analyst. In addition, the limitations of psychoanalysis as a treatment when costed against alternative therapies has radically reduced the client pool, thus raising other questions about theory and practice. From this context, the author reviews Masek's view of the impact of Kohut on the theory and practice of "mainstream" psychoanalytic thought. 2012 APA, all rights reserved)