I think the notion is that we have these needs...

There were three different kinds of idealisation (ranked in order of severity). The most extreme was the 'out of contact with reality' one then there was the more moderate idealisation then there was just the good feelings that ensue from having someone who is fairly stable kind of stably there. That last one... I think that is considered to be a human need (sure infants need it but we need it throughout our lifespan). If people haven't had that as infants then that can lead to the defences that prevent us obtaining it as adults, however...

There were three different kinds of mirroring / twinning too (ranked in order of severity). The most extreme was the 'out of contact with reality' one where there is a full merger of the selfobject (experienced as the client being one with the therapist so that the therapist is thought to lack independent existence entirely). Then there was twinning (? I'll admit I struggled more with this than with the idealisation stuff). The therapist is thought to be similar to the client (similar strengths and desires etc) and then there is the alter ego identification (though maybe I got that and twinning around the wrong way) which is more... Identification with while being aware of differences or something like that... This too is meant to be a human need. And if we don't get it as infants then we develop defences that enable us to repress the need and the consequences are that we never manage to get that need met...

He talked a lot about infants having a narcissim / grandiosity. Liking to be the centre of attention 'mummy look at me!'. And sometimes our parents (because of their own needs) don't mirror our excitement and enthusiasm. They might bring things around to them (because of their own narcissistic needs) or they might react with disgust at our exhibitionism. And so... We repress our exhibitionism / narcissistic need / grandiosity. Instead of it being mirrored (and eventually our being able to channel the need - by the ego - into things like art or drama or some other variety of creativity) we think that it is 'bad' or 'shameful' and we repress it. So... Sponteneity / creativeness is curbed / lacking.

So... That is meant to be some of the cost of denying narcissistic needs for twinning / mirroring / alter ego identification.

I guess I like this theory because I find a lot of the psychodynamic literature that I've read to be fairly judgemental. A fairly black / dark view of humanity. This seems to be more uplifting. It also seems to be a lot more palatable as a process...

Kohut talks about 'optimal frustration' too. The notion is that the therapist should allow / accept the idealisation / mirroring transference. Not try and foster it and not try and reject it. Just accept it. Just by empathy... Those transferential processes should develop... If they don't develop then the therapist has failed to give appropriate empathy. (Hear the difference between that and the notion that if whatever is supposed to happen doesn't then the client is just too sick or defensive for therapy!).

Then... Because the needs are infantile (the client has problems because the needs weren't met as infants) REALITY CANNOT MEET THEM. So... There is GOING to be frustration as a fact of life (hence the therapist SHOULD NOT) purposely try to evoke it. The therapist simply CAN'T meet all the clients idealisation / mirroring needs and thus there will be frustrations. But if the therapist keeps up with the empathy the frustrations will be tolerable and eventually (by interpreting what is happening with the clients frustrations) the client will be able to use the ego to divert the frustrations into sublimation activities (like art and trying to help others etc etc).

At least... I think that is the general idea. Hrm. Analytic philosophy is typically hostile to psychoanalytic theory. I don't dare mention psychoanalytic theory at work ;-) But... There really is something to this... As an art... Not necessarily a science... But then Ainsworth did all this stuff with infants attachment styles and mirroring etc that brought the psychodynamic stuff on attachment within the realm of empirical psychology... So maybe as a science too...

Dunno... More 'world view' stuff (assumptions)... Theory space, world view, categorisation space than empirically testable, I guess.

Like how you can't test alchemy and modern atomic general theories directly but you can test the more specific theories that are developed within the general theories (like the specific theory that lead can be transmuted into gold or that water is H4O). Still... As far as general theories of human nature go... Why not... Be charitable and adopt a kind view of human nature that is uplifting...

Instead of the existentialism of Sartre, for example...

;-)