Masterson

Some had recommended James F. Masterson’s Search For The Real Self : Unmasking The Personality Disorders Of Our Age.
On Amazon web site I read the critique below. (just part of it is below actually). It seems it is written by a psychologist or psychiatrist. Any thoughts?
“Taken literally, this book has three major flaws: (1) Its notion of the "real" self is based on antiquated notions, altogether innocent of any awareness that everyone has many "selves," and that set of selves is always in large part constructed by history and culture. Further, "selves" are in part functions of social situations, not internal organization. The idea of a unified "real" self makes no intellectual sense, relative to research of the last half century. (2) The old-fashioned psychoanalytic theory grounding this book has little or nothing to commend it, so far as real research goes. While Freud, Winnicott, Mahler, etc., were geniuses, and as probably right about as often as wrong, we don't really know which parts of psychoanalysis are and which nonsense. But we do know, beyond peradventure, that research has refuted or failed to confirm most psychoanalytic developmental theories. (3) Everyone outside of New York and a few other very conservative medical communities has recognized that Masterson's type of therapy just doesn't work. He is brilliant at delineating ways of thinking about personality disorders, but unoriginal and unhelpful therapeutically.
Instead of "real self," think, for instance, "habits of living that encompass one's biological make up and social milieu." The issue isn't that the BPD has a "false" self, or that some "real self" lies underneath. Poor design, not falsity, is the problem. The BPD's habits of living fail to encompass and give form to what's integral to his or her biology, temperament, or talents, within the environment in which he or she lives.
Any number of "selves" are possible, given a person's actual make-up, and they may bear little resemblance to each other. For the BPD, new habits of living must be developed; a new set of selves must be cultivated--but actively, not by uncovering something already there.
And don't think of the stuff about early family life as literally, causally true. No research supports that contention; quite the contrary. Seven decades of serious research have failed to uncover correlations between early childhood and adult life. “

Another excerpt from another reviewer's comments:

"That being said, I do have considerable qualms with certain aspects of Masterson's thinking, some of which I share with the other reviewer. I think that by idealizing the maturation of a singular "real" self as pitted against all other (presumably pathological) "false" selves, and failing to take into account the practical effects of environment and culture in the construction of "ideal" functionality, Masterson's theory remains incomplete at best and direly problematic at worst. Plenty of writers (eg. Goffman, Sartre, Doi) have explored the problems encountered when one seeks to unify necessarily disparate social-role "selves" into a congruent whole; there is little evidence that this "unity" is either a universal necessity or a universal mechanism, and I think that its unquestioned assertion in therapy may potentially create more problems than it may solve.

I really sympathize with the poor bloke whose mind was fried by reading this thing; it wreaks utterly of the deterministic, pathologizing mindset so common amongst psychoanalysts. Masterson's reductionism also has a way of pulling all sorts of common daily psychological phenomenon under an enormous umbrella of personality malfunction, ever construed to be congruent with his essentializing structures. Moreover, like many psychoanalysts, Masterson possesses a deep streak of paternal idealism, with a consequent tendency to pathologize the otherwise functionally sound. The structure of his text is thus soaked to the core with the value judgments and prognoses of a particular brand of psychoanalysis, which -- as another reviewer pointed out -- rest on rather questionable foundations.

I think that many of the structures and mechanisms discussed in the book do seem intuitively sound, and while this judgment alone may not be enough to fully justify their active employment in diagnosis and treatment, there's still much to be had here for the interested reader. As food for thought, and as fodder for further synthesis with a discourse less preoccupied with maintaining its own essentialized notions, it can serve to raise some interesting themes. From the standpoint of postmodern discourse, for example, Masterson's emphasis on the "real self" functions as a nice, clearly defined conceptual counterpoint to more generally accepted alternatives.

By the way, if this review seemed helpful, I recommend "The Real Self: A Developmental, Self, and Object-Relations Approach," over this book, as it does a much better job of underlining the more technical aspects of Masterson's thinking. This book is geared much more towards mainstream readership, a purpose for which, incidentally, I can honestly recommend neither.

One last thing (and I should have probably said this earlier): If you've just been diagnosed with BPD, and are looking for further reading on the subject, avoid this book. Some others have recommended this book for its therapeutic value, but it has distinct way of tracing everyday actions back to pathological causes that can drive you batty if you identify too strongly with the case studies. Proceed with caution. "

Hmmm, yeah in my view Emotional Vampires is currently the best non technical read the average person can get on histrionics though people have complained the word vampire is used too much in the book.

Also I feel I must note the word vampire isn't used necessarily as an insult term for people with the disorders in the book its used to describe their emotionally draining actions on others.

This guy who left a review on Amazon is most likely an academic it's all about instinctual habits and behavior and culture the problems our out there very rational very neat nothing to do with messy issues such as internal feelings fantasies shame attachment bonding and defense mechanisms in order to survive, He should ask Mastersons patients who have stayed long enough in therapy to recover if his knowledge is worthless. Or ask them about the voices in their heads that are the exact replica of what their loveless abusive parents used to tell them whenever they tried to express their needs ie. the real self. Remeber culture is not out there somewhere it's in the individual heads of the people who make up that society. Specific childhood experiences sustain specific cultural traits and once these experiences no longer occur the traits either dissappear or are modified.

People with Personality Disorders have False selves that were constructed to defend against painful memories and feelings from infancy and childhood and of present day experiences. These false selves are organized fantasies and not based on reality that's why they call them false. The unintegrated real self is impaired and underdeveloped as well as abandoned because activating nurturing and becoming aware of it makes the person with a PD feel terrible. Once they recover they begin to ignore their false selves and activate the real self in all it's demensions and begin relating to people differently and more realistically as well as developing interests they never had that are in line with what they really want not just to please others to avoid abandonment,

Academics LOATHE psychology and blaming mommy and daddy for emotional problems is still taboo in their circles. The evidence that has accumulated is massive but is simply denied or ignored by them. They also say that contemporary societies that practice infanticide incest head hunting and cannibalism were not abused but have childrearing practices than the west should emulate. These practices they say are cultural and traditional and have nothing to do with what's going on in their heads. Are you kidding me!

Very good points Jason.

I strongly encourage you to post what you have just posted here as your own review on Amazon to counter that academic guy.

It is always good to have two different sides to an argument represented.

Especially if people are discouraged from buying Masterson's books after reading this guy's review.

Yours should be up there as a counterpoint to his review and I hope you get time to post it up.

I think I might just do that thanks