As anyone knows who has tried to follow the twists and turns of Freud's theory as it evolved over his lifetime, the journey can be an odyssey of reversals (e.g., seduction theory), less than explicable retractions (e.g., ego instincts, ego ideal) and revisions (e.g., death instinct, superego, function of ego and anxiety). Add to this the spawn of subsequent theoretical challenges and revisions of Freud's vision via the last two generations of competing object relation theories. Now place yourself in the position of a student eager to chart a personal map of psychoanalytic theory and therapy who is searching for a strategic point of entry into this evolving and ever expanding theoretical landscape. Since its publication in 1983, that strategic point of entry has been ably served through Greenberg and Mitchell's "Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory."

Over the years, there have been a number of highly competent and accessible summaries of object relations theories, their diverging assumptions and key concepts. But none in my view have done so with the level of cogent analysis and synthesis that Greenberg and Mitchell accomplished in a book that launched the distinguished careers of two of most prominent psychoanalytic writers of the last generation. The greatest problem that confronts any comprehensive treatment of these fractious, loose confederation of competing philosophies and articles of faith now found under the heading of "psychoanalytic", is the particular biases of any given author's point of view.

Greenberg and Mitchell are no exceptions where such biases are concerned. Both emerged from the interpersonal movement (relational vs. drive orientation) as it has been initiated in the U.S. by H. S. Sullivan: Mitchell went on to establish the relational school derived from interpersonal, British object relationalists such as Fairbairn, and post-modern perspectives while Greenberg came to a view that allowed for an essential role for drives. In this initial collaboration, sharp lines are drawn here between relational and drive-based theoretical models in which there is a steady pulse of contention sounded throughout the book that these differences are so fundamentally divergent as to be irreconcilable. Those theorists who have attempted to bridge (Kernberg, Mahler), mix (Kohut, Sandler) or agnostically hover over (Winnicott) these differences are criticized for holding to theoretical constructions that are logically inconsistent, unstable, or contrived. Well, in the world of psychoanalytic thought there is enough cause to spread that criticism around to all views at least some of the time. As most who work within the field of psychoanalytic paradigms know, these polemical divisions drawn by Greenberg and Mitchell are over-determined, over-stated, and are rarely religiously observed in actual practice. Every theory attempts to describe its part of the elephant and along the way, sometimes give into the temptation to over-extrapolate from the data at hand. Theory, in Guntrip's words, serves only as "useful servants" to human experience and what drives it. Most academicians and practitioners prefer to maintain a hovering attention that is perpetually informed by multiple theoretical dimensions upon which to define, compare, and contrast the suspected dynamics that may be at work within any given human issue.

Nevertheless, the distinctions and divisions that Greenberg and Mitchell have drawn here-and the historical reasons given for positions taken-puts in useful sharp relief the essential polemics that help orient the student to this confusing terrain. Each chapter provides a wonderful introductory summary of the most influential theories, and generally, the biased commentary is respectfully distinguished as the authors' views. The final chapter, which is both a summary and critical commentary, is decidedly pulling for the relational perspective but will likely stimulate the reader to think more deeply about these positions and begin the process of coming to their own view.

An astounding piece of synthetic analysis of a very, very complicated field, this book has rightly been referrred to by scores and scores of subsequent writers in the field of psychoanalysis and personality theory. The authors have critically scrutinzed the various schools of thought in the post-Freudian landscape and astutely determined their theoretical similarities and differences. The writing is direct and persuasive, albeit intended for an audience familiar with psychological terminology. It is amazing work and one of the best books in any field over the last 20 years.