Content deleted Content added
No edit summary Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
typo |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{short description|Austrian-American psychiatrist (1913–1981)}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=April 2024}}
{{Infobox person
| name = Heinz Kohut
Line 5 ⟶ 6:
| caption =
| birth_name = <!-- if different -->
| birth_date =
| birth_place = [[Vienna]],
| death_date = {{death date and age|1981|10|8|1913|5|3
| death_place = [[Chicago
| other_names =
| occupation =
| known_for = [[Self psychology]]
| years_active =
Line 19 ⟶ 20:
}}
{{psychoanalysis}}
'''Heinz Kohut''' (
==Early life==
Kohut was born on May 3
Kohut was not enrolled in school until the fifth grade. Before that he was taught by several tutors, a series of
In 1929, Kohut spent two months in [[Saint-Quay-Portrieux]] in [[Brittany]] in order to study French. At school he wrote his thesis on [[Euripides]]
Kohut entered the medical faculty of the [[University of Vienna]] in 1932. His studies took six years, during which time he spent six months in internships in [[Paris]], first at the [[Hôtel-Dieu de Paris|Hôtel-Dieu]], and then at the [[Hôpital Saint-Louis]]. The latter hospital specialized in the treatment of [[syphilis]], which subjected Kohut to shocking experiences. In Paris, he became acquainted with Jacques Palaci, a Jewish medical student from [[Istanbul]], and paid a visit to him in 1936. The following year, Kohut's father died of [[leukemia]]. Sometime after this, Kohut entered psychotherapy with Walter Marseilles, who seems not to have been competent at his profession. Early in 1938, Kohut began [[psychoanalysis]] with [[August Aichhorn]], a close friend of [[Sigmund Freud]].{{sfn|Strozier|2001|pp=45, 48–52}}
After [[Austria]] was [[Anschluss|annexed]] to [[Germany]] by [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] on
In February 1940, Kohut was allowed to travel in a British convoy to [[Boston]], from where he travelled to [[Chicago]] by bus. A friend from Vienna, [
==Early days in Chicago==
Line 45 ⟶ 46:
In 1944 Kohut decided to leave neurology and move into [[psychiatry]], and in 1947 he was appointed associate professor of psychiatry at the [[University of Chicago]]. He got his certification psychiatry in 1949.
In the fall of 1946 he had already been accepted to the Chicago Institute and began immediately on its courses. In the summer of 1947, he was given his first two
Unlike Franz Alexander, who had sought to shorten analyses, Kohut took as long as it took for the patients to get well in analysis. The agenda came entirely from the patient, whose job it was to say whatever occurred to him or her. He said to one of his patients:
He received his patients at the institute. All his patients are said to have adored him, although in the beginning of his career he had one case with which he failed miserably. Also, during the early years of his career as an analyst, his success was mixed.
Line 54 ⟶ 55:
===Teacher of psychoanalysis===
Kohut's work in teaching at the institute became his primary commitment for the rest of his life. He soon became known as the most gifted and creative analyst in the Chicago Institute. Together with Louis Shapiro and Joan Fleming, he rewrote the curriculum of the institute and taught its two-year theory course for a decade. The course was not one of the history of psychoanalysis but a study of
He later gave the course over to Philip Seitz, who had been auditing the course and had made notes of it that he had discussed with Kohut and then amended those notes in accordance of those discussions. This collaboration resulted in a joint article, entitled "Concepts and Theories of Psychoanalysis: Relation of Method and Theory" (1963).<ref name=Kohut&Seitz>{{cite journal
Line 96 ⟶ 97:
The last of these positions meant an incredible amount of work, preparing all kinds of meetings and working in a number of committees, as well as putting out all kinds of bush fires within the association. There was, for example, a question of whether analysts should or could express publicly their views about the mental health of [[Barry Goldwater]].
Kohut was at the time very much a representative of traditional Freudian analysis, and he was very careful not to do anything that could have been interpreted as a departure from traditional views. He was also careful about
During this time Kohut became acquainted with everyone who mattered in psychoanalysis worldwide. For Kohut, the most important of these figures was [[Anna Freud]]. He first met her in 1964 in a meeting in [[Princeton, New Jersey|Princeton]]. After that they were constantly writing to each other.
Line 102 ⟶ 103:
In the fall of 1966, the University of Chicago gave Anna Freud an honorary doctoral degree. Kohut may have been among the people who initiated this idea, and when she came to Chicago for this event, she stayed with the Kohuts in their apartment. Various activities were arranged for her in Chicago, and for Kohut this visit was a great success.
In the long run Kohut began to feel that his work as the president drained his energies and kept him from developing his own ideas. He was also beginning to have ambivalent feelings about classical analysis. In addition, this position exposed him to people who were self-centered, full of themselves and narcissistic in the worst sense of the word. There was nothing wrong in the science of psychoanalysis, he felt, but the problem was in the people
After leaving his position of the president of ''The American'', Kohut was in 1965 elected vice-president of the [[International Psychoanalytical Association]] (IPA). In 1968 he was encouraged by Anna Freud and the Eisslers to run for the presidency of this world-wide organization, as in 1969 it was the
===A writer within psychoanalysis===
====Early articles====
Beginning in 1946, Kohut's friend Siegmund Levarie organized a series of concerts at the University of Chicago. In 1947, the response of the audience to a piece composed by [[Béla Bartók]] led him to write an article on some general principles of the psychology of music, which was published in 1950 in the ''[[Psychoanalytic Quarterly]]'' with the title
====On empathy====
Kohut's first truly scientific contribution was his 1959 article on [[empathy]], entitled "Introspection, Empathy, and Psychoanalysis: An Examination of the Relationship Between Mode of Observation and Theory", which was written for the twenty-fifth anniversary meeting of the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis in November
This theme actually relates to the very foundation of psychoanalysis, the ability of one human being potentially to gain access to the psychological states of another human being. Interestingly, Sigmund Freud only mentioned this phenomenon in passing in a footnote in one of his articles (
| last = Freud
| first = Sigmund
Line 139 ⟶ 140:
====Applied psychoanalysis====
In 1960 Kohut published in the ''[[Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association]]'' an article entitled
*[[Phyllis Greenacre]]: ''[[Jonathan Swift|Swift]] and [[Lewis Carroll|Carroll]], A Psychoanalytic Study of Two Lives'' (1955);
Line 164 ⟶ 165:
====On courage====
The article entitled
| last = Kohut
| first = Heinz
Line 188 ⟶ 189:
====Mitscherlich laudation====
Kohut spoke and wrote on the post-war psychological problems of the German people when he was invited to speak in [[Frankfurt am Main]] in October 1969. He was chosen as the laudator when the [[Peace Prize of the German Book Trade]] was awarded to [[Alexander Mitscherlich (psychologist)|Alexander Mitscherlich]], with whom Kohut had become acquainted since the 1950s. Mitscherlich was a medical doctor and a psychoanalyst who had written several well received books on Germany's guilt concerning [[World War II]] and the [[Holocaust]]. Kohut's main thesis was that Mitscherlich had applied the
| last = Kohut
| first = Heinz
Line 204 ⟶ 205:
In the aftermath of [[World War II]] and [[the Holocaust]], Freudian analysis focused on individual guilt and tended not to reflect the new [[zeitgeist]] (the emotional interests and needs of people struggling with issues of identity, meaning, ideals, and self-expression). [http://www.2think.org/heinz_kohut.shtml] Though he initially tried to remain true to the traditional analytic viewpoint with which he had become associated and viewed the self as separate but coexistent to the [[Id, ego and super-ego|ego]], Kohut later rejected Freud's structural theory of the [[id, ego, and superego]]. He then developed his ideas around what he called the tripartite (three-part) self.<ref name=insideout>{{cite book |last= Flanagan |first= Laura Melano |year= 1996 |contribution= The theory of self psychology |editor1-last= Berzoff |editor1-first= Joan |editor2-last= Flanagan |editor2-first= Laura Melano |editor3-last= Hertz |editor3-first= Patricia |title= Inside out and outside in |place= Northvale, New Jersey |publisher= [[Jason Aronson]] |isbn= 1568217773 |oclc= 76937378 |url= https://archive.org/details/insideoutoutside00berz }}</ref>
According to Kohut, this three-part self can only develop when the needs of one's
Kohut demonstrated his interest in how we develop our
==The self psychology movement==
===The beginnings===
With the exception of such persons as
Goldberg eventually emerged as the central figure of the group, whereas Paul Ornstein would become the editor of Kohut's collected works. Basch was the most original thinker of the group, but he chose to remain on its fringes.
The group met originally in Kohut's apartment in order to discuss his manuscript of what would become ''The Analysis of the Self''. There were nine such meetings during the spring and early summer of 1969. The manuscript was considered to be difficult by the group, and the comments convinced Kohut that he had to write a new beginning to this book, which then became its first chapter, entitled
==''The Analysis of the Self''==
Line 235 ⟶ 236:
In 1971, just after the publication of ''The Analysis of the Self'', Kohut was diagnosed with [[lymphoma]] or lymphatic cancer. The cancer spread slowly but was mostly kept under control until 1977. Just when he had enjoyed the moment of greatest glory, he was confronted by a disease that was totally out of his control.<ref>Strozier 2001, pp. 231–232.</ref> Due to his disease he would turn down most invitations to speak, including a chance to speak at [[Harvard University]], and to deliver the Freud lecture in [[Vienna]]. He also gave up his talks at [[Princeton University]], but he did speak regularly at the [[University of Cincinnati]], which bestowed upon him an honorary degree in November 1973.<ref>Strozier 2001, p. 238.</ref>
In 1973, a banquet was arranged for Kohut's 60th birthday, which turned into a conference on self psychology. Among the participants were such people as [[Alexander Mitscherlich (psychologist)|Alexander Mitscherlich]] from [[Frankfurt]], Paul Parin from [[
In Strozier's view, Kohut's illness forced him to think for himself and resulted in several breakthroughs in his career as a theorist of psychoanalysis. He came to the conclusion that many analysts had been shaming their analysands in the guise of offering interpretations, that neurotic pathology was only a cover for narcissistic problems, that idealization was not a form of defense, that everyone needs mirroring, and that rage is a byproduct of the disintegration of the self. He broke free from classical metapsychology and formed his own, general psychology, with the self as its center. This would be self-psychology in its broad sense. The approaching death forced Kohut to think with his own brains. He knew that he was shaking psychoanalysis in its core, and he was afraid he would not have the time to finish his revolutionary job. By and large he stopped reading psychoanalytic literature, saying either that others say things better than him or that they write things that are no good. He devoted his time to his own writing, to listening to music and reading about the arts.<ref>Strozier 2001, pp. 240–241, 243.</ref>
===On narcissistic rage===
In his book ''The Analysis of the Self'', Kohut states that the topic of narcissistic rage will be taken up separately. This he did in the article ''Thoughts on Narcissism and Narcissistic Rage'', which he published in 1972.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Kohut|first=Heinz|year=1972|title=Thoughts on Narcissism and Narcissistic Rage|url=https://mindsplain.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/thoughts-on-narcissism-narcissistic-rage.pdf|access-date=September 6, 2020
{{
The article was possibly a miscalculation, because he ought to have written on this topic in one of his monographs, which were more widely read than his articles. Due to this fact, criticism was leveled at him, saying that his views on aggression and rage were inadequate and naive and superficial at best.<ref name="Strozier 2001, p. 249">Strozier 2001, p. 249.</ref>
Line 250 ⟶ 251:
According to Kohut,<ref>Kohut 1972, p. 635.</ref>
{{cquote|Human aggression is most dangerous when it is attached to the two great absolutarian psychological constellations: the grandiose self and the archaic omnipotent object. And the most gruesome human destructiveness is encountered, not in the form of wild, regressive, and primitive behavior, but in the form of orderly and organized activities in which the
}}
Mature aggression, however, is goal oriented and limited in scope. Rage, on the other hand, consists of a desperate need for revenge, an unforgiving fury for righting a wrong, when one's self has disintegrated due to an experienced slight.<ref>Strozier 2001, p. 250.</ref>
Kohut published another important article in 1976, entitled
The key concept in this article is the group self, which he puts forward in a tentative manner, as a
Charismatic and messianic personalities evolve from childhood situations, in which the child has been given empathy at first, but then the mirroring and idealized figures have caused them
{{cquote| [t]hey seem to combine an absolute certainty concerning the power of their selves and an absolute conviction concerning the validity of their ideals with an equally absolute lack of empathic understanding for large segments of feelings, needs, and rights of other human beings and for the values cherished by them. They understand the environment in which they live only as an extension of their own narcissistic universe. They understand others only insofar—but here with the keenest empathy!—as they can serve as tools toward their own narcissistic ends or insofar as they interfere with their own purposes. It is not likely that depth psychology will find effective means to influence such persons, at least not those who present themselves in the arena of history. But the historian-analyst and the analyst-historian may well be able to make contributions that will not only increase our psychological grasp of such personalities, but will also provide answers to two interrelated questions: How do the characteristic psychological features of the messianic and charismatic person dovetail with the widespread yearning for archaic omnipotent figures? And what are the specific historical circumstances that tend to increase this yearning?}}
Line 268 ⟶ 269:
In 1973, Kohut assembled again the group of his younger followers, inactive since 1969, to write what would be published as the so-called ''Casebook'', officially ''The Psychology of the Self: A Casebook''. Invited were John Gedo, [[Arnold Goldberg]], [http://www.selfpsychology.com/1996memorium.htm Michael Franz Basch], [[Paul Ornstein]] and [[Anna Ornstein]], Paul Tolpin and Marian Tolpin, [https://iapsp.org/interview-with-ernest-wolf Ernest Wolf], David Marcus and Meyer Gunther. However, Gedo soon left the group.
The idea was that Kohut's disciples were to write case histories of analyses which Kohut had supervised, and that Kohut would supply the book with his comments. The book was edited by Arnold Goldberg, but John Gedo left the group in 1974, and Kohut himself soon left the project as well, although it is said on the cover that it was
==''The Restoration of the Self''==
Line 275 ⟶ 276:
The title of Kohut's second monograph is ''The Restoration of the Self''. It was published in 1977.
Kohut started to write this book in [[Carmel, California]], during his summer vacation in 1974. By February 1975, he had written ca.
''The Restoration of the Self'' is the best-written and most accessible book by Kohut. He tried as best he could to avoid the language of the drive theory as well as psychoanalytic [[metapsychology]], which made his first book, ''The Analysis of the Self'', such a difficult read. Kohut had decided to make his new book more accessible, and he worked together with Natalie Altman, his publisher's editor, who would read and comment on his text. This work proceeded throughout the year 1976.<ref>Strozier 2001, s. 279.</ref>
Line 281 ⟶ 282:
''Restoration'' turned out to be Kohut's breakthrough, the work in which he steps up from behind the curtain. He had abandoned the drive theory and its language, and he was never again to return to the mainstream Freudian psychoanalysis. Nearly all principles of psychoanalytic technique, inherited from Freud, were now in the line of fire: the drive theory, the central role of infantile sexuality, the Oedipus complex, the close relationship between conflicts, defenses and resistances, and working through. Kohut makes a clear break from Freudian thinking.<ref>Strozier 2001, s. 281–282.</ref>
Kohut says that ''The Restoration of the Self''
{{cquote|would have entangled me in a thicket of similar, overlapping, or identical terms and concepts which, however, did not carry the same meaning and were not employed as a part of the same conceptual context.}}
Line 287 ⟶ 288:
Kohut bypasses most authors in the field of psychoanalysis, but not Freud. He is in constant dialogue with him, and often finds himself contradicting him: Freud is no longer a relevant thinker from the point of view of history, or conceptually, therapeutically of philosophically.
Kohut writes about the Tragic Man (his view of man) and the Guilty Man (Freud's view of man), and Freud seems almost to suffocate Kohut. He struggles to breathe, and the
For Freud the essence of psychoanalysis was that
Healing was not Freud's point.
Kohut wanted to fundamentally question Freudian drive theory, and he understood that at the same time he would have to question the goals of Freudian analysts:
==The Two Analyses of Mr. Z.==
In 1977, at the age of 64, Kohut wrote an article that was to be entitled
When the German edition of ''Restoration'' (''Die Heilung des Selbst'') was in preparation, Eckstaedt wrote to Kohut with two demands: (1) the case needed to be disguised further, and (2) Eckstaedt wanted to have more credit for the case. These demands were clearly mutually exclusive, resulting in a dilemma, which Kohut solved by writing up the case of ''Mr. Z.'', which replaced the case of ''Mr. X.'' in the German edition, which came out in 1979. Kohut later published the case in English in the ''[[International Journal of Psycho-Analysis]]'', carefully edited by Natalie Altman.<ref name = Strozier309>Strozier 2001, p. 309.</ref>
Line 327 ⟶ 328:
Kohut's mother Else also lived in Chicago, not far from Kohut's apartment. In the 1950s and 1960s she visited the Kohut family regularly for dinners and major holidays. She is said to have been the only person who could really get under Kohut's skin. Apparently no one in the family liked her. She would be pushy and aggressive, speak directly at other people's faces and poke people with her finger.
After 1965, when Else was getting close to 75 years of age, she began to
| last = Strozier
| first = Charles B.
Line 355 ⟶ 356:
==Death==
In the final week of his life, knowing that his time was at an end, Kohut spent as much time as he could with his family and friends. He fell into a [[coma]] on the evening of October 7, 1981, and died of cancer in [[Chicago]] on the morning of October 8.<ref>
== Publications==
Line 383 ⟶ 384:
* White, M. & Weiner, M., ''The Theory And Practice Of Self Psychology'' (1986). {{ISBN|0-87630-425-0}}.
* Ernest S. Wolf: ''Treating the Self: Elements of Clinical Self Psychology'' (2002). {{ISBN|1-57230-842-7}}.
* Charles B. Strozier, Konstantine Pinteris, Kathleen Kelley, and Deborah Cher: ''The New World of Self, Heinz Kohut's Transformation of Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy'' (2022). [[Oxford University Press]], Oxford, U.K. {{ISBN|9780197535226}}.
==See also==
Line 429 ⟶ 431:
* [http://www.selfpsychology.com/bibliogr.htm Self Psychology Bibliography]
* [http://www.selfpsychology.com/books/strozier/preface.heinzkohut.htm Preface to Charles Strozier's biography of Kohut ]
* [http://www.psychologyoftheself.com/kohut/strozier2.htm Final chapter of Charles Stroizer's biography of Kohut] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303180204/http://www.psychologyoftheself.com/kohut/strozier2.htm |date=March 3, 2016 }}
* [http://www.psychologyoftheself.com/kohut/strozier1.htm Brief Biography by Charles Strozier] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303221525/http://www.psychologyoftheself.com/kohut/strozier1.htm |date=March 3, 2016 }}
{{Authority control}}
Line 438 ⟶ 440:
[[Category:1981 deaths]]
[[Category:American psychoanalysts]]
[[Category:Jewish
[[Category:Psychiatrists]]
[[Category:Jewish psychoanalysts]]
[[Category:Austrian Jews]]
[[Category:Austrian psychiatrists]]
[[Category:American psychiatrists]]
[[Category:
[[Category:Analysands of August Aichhorn]]
[[Category:Jewish emigrants from Austria
[[Category:20th-century American physicians]]
| |||