bradj wrote:
>
> Dear Thereasa,
>    Kohut is big in modern psychoanalytic theory (self theory).  Margaret
> Mahler is big.   Kernberg is a big name.  Some of Bowlby is worth a read
> (on attachment theory).  Erik Erikson is still big.  R.D.  Laing is
> considered "nuts."  yours, brad
>
> >On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Thereasa Newton wrote:
> >
> >> I am a PsyD student and looking for the latest material on
> >> psychoanalytic psychodynamic theory. I have been reading Langs and would
> >> like to know where he stands among the mainstream theorists. Which
> >> theorist is presently accepted as presenting the technique most commonly
> >> used today?  Thanks for input.
> >>
> >> Thereasa
> >>
> >One of the most accessible writers on classic psychoanalytic theory is Dr.
> >Herb Strean. He is published by Jason Aronson.
> >Steve Weiss
> >New York University
Lang and Laings are different people.  I don't hear much mention any
more about R. D. Laings, but I don't think he's nuts:  one of his ideas
is that the schizophrenic is, so to speak, the identified patient in a
family, who in his or her way is trying to work out the family's
difficulties.  I'm repressing Lang's first name at the moment, but once
coined a sniglet term: "Langsiety" which refers to the feeling that
everything one does as an anaylst is wrong.  He's a very big name in the
area of psychoanalytic technique, and very worth reading for ---- as I
recall my impression --- a pretty conservative stance on good (and bad)
technique.  Virginia Hunter's ANALYST TALK will give you a sense for how
roughly a dozen big name analysts view technique differently.  Glen
Gabbard's PSYCHODYNAMIC PSYCHOTHERAPY IN CLINICAL PRACTICE:  THE DSM-IV
edition is, I think, a terrific book for an up-to-date overview of
various psychoanalytic perspectives in their application to DSM
diagnostic terms.