---

BREAKING NEWS

Dr Judith Pearson, has been at the helm of IMI providing secure guidance with a clear and unwavering vision of bringing the wisdom of Dr J.F. Masterson to new generations of psychoanalytically oriented therapists. Her intellect has provided brilliant insights especially in her writings and in contributing at numerous conferences over so many years.

As she approaches retirement, Dr Pearson has announced that William Griffith has graciously accepted to take on the role of Director of the IMI as of September 2024. She writes: “Given his formidable intellect, outstanding clinical skills and organizational abilities as shown by his leadership of MISA, and knowing that he is fully dedicated to the IMI and will do everything in his power to help the Institute and all associated with it to grow and succeed, I am fully confident that he will continue to work as hard and successfully as he has been doing to keep the IMI alive and thriving.”

William Griffith resides in Cape Town, South Africa. He is in full time private practice and is still humbled by humanity on a daily basis.

---

A GLIMPSE INTO THE HISTORY OF THE IMI

Dr Pearson has kindly shared with us a brief glimpse into the beginning of IMI. She writes:

“I started what was then The Masterson Institute’s first postgraduate 3 year program in 1986. At that time I was a newly graduated Ph.D. As I had done well academically , and through my work at Bronx Psychiatric Center knew senior clinicians who were teachers at various well known post graduate institutes in New York City, I had a very good chance of being admitted to one of these well known and highly regarded institutions. However, a friend of mine, who had been my supervisor during my internship, and who was someone whose intellect and clinical work I greatly admired had gone to a workshop put on by the Masterson Group . She suggested I attend the next one. I did, and I was hooked. These folks are really smart , I thought, and their clinical approach resonated both intellectually and intuitively. I immediately signed on, and never, for a single moment, regretted it.

In 1989 when I graduated I was selected to become part of the faculty of the Institute, this appointment to be confirmed only after I had completed two years of supervision with Masterson. The training and my post certificate supervision with James Masterson was a thrilling and illuminating experience.

During my tenure as faculty I had the privilege of teaching every course the Institute offered. It was hard work, but as always happens, teaching the courses taught me.

Upon the retirement of Dr. Ralph Klein, I was appointed Clinical Director of the Institute.and It was during my tenure as Clinical Director that I received an email from two guys from South Africa, William Griffith and Loray Daws asking if there was any way they could do the three-year-program, which up until this point had been conducted in person in Dr. Masterson’s office. As this was twenty years ago, online programs, now abundant, were virtually unknown. I thought about it, conferred with the two South Africans, and then presented the idea to Masterson, who initially labeled the idea (and me) “grandiose.” William and Loray promptly flew to New York, we all had dinner, and by dessert Dr. Masterson was fully onboard. Thus was the International Masterson Institute born. Dr. Masterson participated as Director of the IMI until his death in 2010.

Since that time, I have had the honor of following in his footsteps, and watching the Institute thrive, with branches now in the USA, South Africa, Turkey,and Australia, and students from all over the globe. During this time, I have been privileged to work with an amazing, super smart, clinically talented and fully dedicated faculty., and it is to their hands, and those of our new Director, William Griffith (yes, that same William) with gratitude and full confidence I pass the torch. It’s been an amazing ride, and I thank you guys with all my heart.”

---

NEWS FROM AROUND THE WORLD

---

NEWS FROM AROUND THE WORLD

---

Masterson Australia

Masterson Australia was formed in 2020 comprised of Australian Masterson therapists trained through the IMI (East Coast USA) programme. The name, Masterson Australia, distinguishes it from the Sydney-based Masterson institute known as ‘IMI Australia’.

The Masterson Australia website was subsequently developed to promote Masterson psychoanalytic psychotherapy and Masterson therapists to the Australian community.

An online peer study group for Masterson therapists grew from this collaboration and meets regularly. Its aim is to extend our learning as Masterson therapists. The learning focus is currently on self-states and trauma, with valuable facilitation from Candace Orcutt on these topics. This peer group is going strong, although we lost our dear colleague, Eric Timewell, last October.

Masterson Australia numbers increased this year with the inclusion of two recent Australian graduates – Maree Even & Siew Lan Ho. We congratulate them on their successful graduation and are delighted to have them join our community.

To promote Masterson’s work to the professional field, an 8-week Clinical Study Group on Disorders of Self is conducted in Perth each year. This garners considerable interest from local psychotherapists. Seeing more Australian therapists undertake the 3-year Masterson training would be most welcome.

Maggie Down
Director, Masterson Australia

---

NEWS FROM AROUND THE WORLD

---

Since its inception MISA (Masterson Institute South Africa) had hosted bi-annual conferences with the intent to promote both clinical and theoretical understanding of working with Dr James Masterson’s concept of the Disorders of the Self. This longstanding tradition was unfortunately disrupted by the Covid Pandemic. In July 2023 MISA was able to resume hosting its bi-annual conference with the focus this time on ‚Clinical Conversations in Treating Pre-oedipal Pathologies.

Unlike the previous conferences, which were held in a more familiar format of speakers presenting clinical papers to the audience, MISA decided to host the latest conference in a more informal and intimate style: only a small amount of attendees were catered for, with presentations this time held in a conversational format between two presenters. The idea was to invite exploration around clinical application and theoretical discussions with a focus on Dr Masterson’s work. By all accounts it was deemed to be a huge success and the overwhelming sense was to keep this format for future conferences.

MISA remains one of the most active partners in keeping Dr Masterson’s work relevant and more importantly current by hosting such conferences, as well as providing short introduction courses to clinicians, and also facilitating reading groups and public talks.

Working with pre-oedipal difficulties remains a challenge to both therapist and patient, which is exactly where the Masterson model makes a significant contribution in a meaningful way.

Sean Moorcroft (MISA)

---

REFLECTIONS FROM OUR GRADUATES

The three-year post-graduate programme offered by the International Masterson Institute provides a comprehensive approach to working with the disorders of the self from a psychodynamic perspective. The coursework delves into an expanse of psychoanalytic theory, from classical to contemporary models. The theoretical component provides an excellent backdrop to understanding the thinking of James Masterson, whose approach is built on a sound integration of developmental, self, and object-relations theory in order to understand and treat the Borderline, Narcissistic, and Schizoid disorders of the self. The course covers important developments in the areas of neurobiology, attachment, and trauma. While the primary focus is on diagnosis and treatment, there is an unwavering appreciation of the complexities involved in the therapeutic process for both patient and therapist, as well as the centrality of the therapeutic relationship. The course brings Dr Masterson’s model to life in a context of interactive training facilitated by supportive, knowledgeable, and passionate lecturers and supervisors.

My opportunity to participate in the course came shortly after I entered the daunting, rather lonely waters of private practice. Feeling somewhat adrift, I was looking for a beacon of light to guide me in my work. The programme exceeded my expectations and was a truly enriching experience, both professionally and personally. I look forward to continuing my journey and ongoing learning with the Institute.

---

The IMI has been the best investment in myself, foremost as a therapist and then as a mother, spouse and patient.

I feel my therapeutic viewpoint is much stronger and more steady, and the process of differential diagnosis based on multiple parameters is my compass from now on.

As for the lectures, they have been very stimulating and many times moving and entertaining to me, getting me through my week, and keeping me energized and productive.

I wish i had undertaken the program before i had children as the info on right to right brain and neuropsychological child development has been priceless.
So much still to learn, to ponder about, to reread and mull over. This programme has made my work experience more demanding but yet more deeply satisfying.

---

I began the Masterson Study program in 2020, from Perth in Western Australia, a long way from New York. With the program being online it allowed me to not only participate in it, but to do it with other students and lecturers from various parts of the world, including, the United States, South Africa, Greece and Turkey. And since it was online, it was pretty much the only thing in my life not affected by the Covid pandemic, continuing smoothly throughout this unusual time.

The program began with a grounding in how psychoanalytic thought has developed over time. With its rich beginnings in the thinking of Freud, to the important developments of the British Object Relations Theorists, until more recently with the continued ideas and insights of the Modern Analytic Theorists. In learning about object relations and attachment I understood how the pre-oedipal time in our patients lives and their earliest relationships impact their sense of self and experience of the other.

A large portion of the program was dedicated to the study of the three disorders of the self, namely Borderline, Narcissistic and Schizoid. Through this time, I began to understand the internal world of my patients more fully, including the self and object units they may inhabit and how they defend to keep their specific internal world in place. Before the program, I struggled with truly ‘getting’ what was occurring for some of the people I worked with, so I think the Masterson program has allowed me a much richer and detailed understanding of my patients, as well as allowing me to develop a language to communicate with each of them. It has also provided me with a more thorough understanding of the psychoanalytic therapeutic process, forming a therapeutic alliance to working through, as well as a more in-depth knowledge of some of the key concepts, such as, the therapeutic frame, transference acting out, transference, counter-transference, projective identification, abandonment depression and the self-triad.

I began the Masterson program wanting to understand people more deeply and hoping to assist my patients more effectively. It is with a feeling of satisfaction and gratitude that I reflect and can say that the program has facilitated me in moving towards both these goals. And although the study is finished, I now begin a process of integrating everything I have learnt, and look forward to continuing my learning with the Masterson community in the future.

---

THE WORD OF THE ISSUE

PROJECTIVE IDENTIFICATION

---

“In projective identification, not only does the patient view the therapist in a distorted way that is determind by the patient’s past object relations: in addition, pressure is exerted on the therapist to experience himself in a way that is congruent with the patient’s unconscious fantasy”.

— Thomas H. Ogden (1991) Projective Identification and Psychotherapeutic Technique

A brief example from couple therapy is the case where the husband (with a Closet Narcissistic Disorder of the Self) feels weak and incompetent. Idealising his wife as more capable thus deferring to her. This then ‘forces’ the wife to be competent and strong, Typically this may then reinforce the husband’s feeling of weakness and incompetence thus becoming an instance of self-fulfilling prophecy.

---

COMMENTS FROM OUR READERS

Most therapists mention that it is hard for them to sit with grandiose narcissistic people in the session room because they feel inadequate, threatened, worthless, insecure about their competence and feel uneasy so it is hard for them to provide therapy for narcissistic clients (specifically for the grandiose ones). Actually that feeling of experiencing the client’s projective identification, may also feel terribly hard for the client to sit with someone when they have no idea about their perception. So, you need to know that while it is hard for you to sit with those feelings of clients for 45 minutes, this is the way they almost aways live their life. If you may able to take this projective identification experience as an opportunity to understand the intrapsychic structure of the client that may create a bridge to hear and understand their feelings.

Meral Aydin (Turkey)

We would like to invite comments from you, our readers, particularly of experiences you might have on the topic of Projective Identification and which will be illustrative.

Please send your thoughts and contributions to Anne-Marie.

---

A PIECE TO PONDER

TRAGIC OUTCOMES OF NARCISSISM AS DEPICTED IN THE FILM “OPPENHEIMER“

The film Oppenheimer, directed by Christopher Nolan, is an epic biopic about the American theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. It explores his life during his time studying experimental quantum physics and his role in developing the world’s first atomic bomb.

Oppenheimer received critical acclaim, raking up awards including the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor which went to Robert Downey Jr. for his portrayal of Lewis Strauss, the man focussed on annihilating Oppenheimer. I was struck by the interesting themes around narcissism Oppenheimer explores. It is impossible to do justice to the deep themes embedded in this visually, emotionally and mentally rich film. This attempt to touch on them within a Mastersonian frame merely scratches the surface of the opus, and is but a palimpsest of Masterson’s work.

Masterson (2000) notes that, “the false self is not based on reality, but on a fantasy, and it maintains self-esteem not by efforts to master reality, but by defending against painful affects.” It is notable how this dilemma underpins the internal dramas which played out for the two protagonists, Lewis Strauss and Robert Oppenheimer, as indeed it does variously for each of the disorders of the self.

The second World War had ended at the beginning of September 1945, barely a month after the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oppenheimer, through his endeavours in the building of these significant and cataclysmically deadly weapons, was idolised by many Americans as a national hero. When Strauss met Oppenheimer for the first time in 1947, he had attained the position of Commissioner of the Atomic Energy Commission. With childlike enthusiasm, Strauss ran to greet Oppenheimer who was alighting from a car. How clearly he demonstrated how much he, in concert with the nation, idealised him, as the man instrumental in bringing the war to an end. How high was the pedestal on which he placed his hero! For Strauss Oppenheimer is, “the omnipotent object [who] is perfect and powerful, and necessary for idealisation and mirroring.” Being able to share this perfection would permit Strauss, “to bask in the glow of the object, and leave him feeling unique, wonderful and special.” (Lieberman, 2004)

After the war, Oppenheimer’s earnest ideals regarding the need for restraint in the use of nuclear weapons, and his fervid proclamations to this end, set him in opposition to the political power brokers of the time. This set in motion the culminating events and the public opprobrium so powerfully described in the film.

Strauss was instrumental in the de-throning of Oppenheimer, orchestrating the hearings which stripped him of his security clearance and, more significantly, tarnished him, eventually branding him a traitor. Oppenheimer fought to demonstrate his innocence but was grist to the mill of the political machinery, and he became a political pariah. Given the pivotal role Strauss played in ensuring this outcome, after his long admiration of Oppenheimer, what could have occurred that underpinned Strauss’ vengeful hatred of Oppenheimer?

Oppenheimer was born to a wealthy family with an opulent lifestyle. He was described as a solitary and precocious child who enjoyed mineralogy and writing poetry. He later described how his childhood “did not prepare me for the fact that the world is full of cruel and bitter things” (nps.gov). As Daws (2013) highlights, “Guntrip, a pioneer psychoanalyst of the schizoid condition, poignantly argued throughout his work that ontological security is not something one is born with but is acquired in a safe relationship with another: ‘The one thing that the child cannot do for himself is to give himself a basic sense of security, since that is a function of object relationship’” As an aside, it is no wonder that Oppenheimer fought so valiantly during the hearings related to the clearance relating to his security!

Was it this afore-mentioned ontological insecurity that spurred Oppenheimer to pursue the then-new field of quantum physics in England and Germany? Having thus equipped himself, he started teaching (and later gathered) a dedicated following of students who were both passionate physicists and admirers. It is possible Strauss’s envy at seeing this enamoured throng, and being deeply desirous of such admiration himself, spurred his identification with Oppenheimer.

In Guntrip’s (1969) delineation of the principal traits that define the schizoid person, narcissism is “a characteristic that arises out of the predominantly interior life the schizoid lives. His love objects are all inside him and moreover he is greatly identified with them so that his libidinal attachments appear to be in himself.” Hence the interiority of his love objects permit him to find safety without attaching to objects in the real world. By comparison, the fusion of the narcissist’s object relations accommodates no other, only an extension of self, hence setting the stage for mutual destruction.

Strauss, who called himself a self-made man, had risen to become the Commissioner of the Atomic Energy Commission through his own endeavours. In spite of his stellar achievements (emblematic of a high capacity for ego functioning), his past inability to pursue his dream of becoming a physicist, and being obliged to become a shoe salesman, may have left him feeling inadequate and unworthy, with the concomitant aggressive fused part-unit of the harsh, attacking, and devaluing object. The resultant rejection of those elements that did not fit with his grandiose self-image may have led him to change the pronunciation of his name: a denial perhaps of his genealogy in an era when such ancestry was denigrated? Is it unwitting irony that in changing the pronunciation of his surname, Strauss dropped the ‘u’ (also a homonym for “you”)? Perhaps his idealisation of Oppenheimer, and his identification with him, enabled his grandiose dreams and quashed the underlying humiliated, shamed, and empty self-representation. In contrast, whilst maybe ambivalent about his Jewish roots, Oppenheimer did not deny them. Perhaps the awareness of the suffering inflicted on others may have intensified his efforts to defeat the Nazi regime with its stated wish to annihilate the Jewish population. How intensely would such an annihilatory endeavour have reified his ontological insecurity!

As Daws (2013) notes, “marginalized and appropriated, the future schizoid grows up hypersensitive to all perceived threats to self-preservation, desperately relying on various techniques to keep the other at bay.” In an environment characterised by possessiveness and indifference, the smothering of a vibrant self is predicated. And yet in the portrayal of Oppenheimer in the role of the magical physicist, he is viewed taming the quantum world. To this end, Fairbairn suggests that role-playing or exhibitionism may be used to reveal, while still not giving of themselves, thereby protecting the self from appropriation. Oppenheimer’s drive towards self-preservation, and his evasion of the dread of appropriation, collided powerfully with Strauss’s desire for identification and fusion. Albeit unconscious for both players, this collision may have set in motion the drama that played out between the two men.

Strauss experienced a number of humiliations in his association with Oppenheimer, the first of which was Oppenheimer’s question, “Have you ever studied physics formally?” This was a fatal blow to the fantasy of the fusion he felt. With the apparent superiority being a marker of the schizoid personality, and given that Oppenheimer had called Einstein a “forgotten genius”, Strauss may have wondered how much greater would be his dismissal of a shoe salesman. The change in his facial expression indicates how disastrously and painfully he viewed himself through Oppenheimer’s eyes, intensely believing himself to be denigrated in his hero’s mind. In another scene, later revealed to be seminal, he believes that Oppenheimer caused Einstein to ignore him, as though he didn’t exist. A third humiliation was how Oppenheimer publicly disagreed with Strauss’s export policy on isotopes, in a way which mocked his lack of knowledge, and which left him feeling intensely humiliated. As Lieberman (2004) summarises it, Oppenheimer’s failure to provide perfect mirroring would in all likelihood have sparked an experience of shame, humiliation, narcissistic injury, a colder sense of outrage, and a lack of relatedness. This latter deficiency, where the ‘relatedness’ is based on fusion, is powerfully illustrated near the end of the film, when he recounts to an aide his experience of humiliation in regard to the meeting with Einstein. As his aide however, poignantly points out, Einstein’s ignoring him may have had nothing to do with Strauss. The hubris and tragedy, as well as the real cost of the narcissist’s adaptation, could not be more self-evident.

Guntrip (1969) who identified nine characteristics that mark the schizoid personality, defines the narcissism of the schizoid as “a characteristic that arises out of the predominantly interior life of the schizoid. Given that the emotional investment is within the self, there is little involvement in the actual emotional or psychological world of the other. Unlike the narcissistic personality, this is not about grandiosity, but about withdrawal of emotional investment from the outer world to the safety of the inner world. His love objects are all inside him and moreover he is greatly identified with them so that his libidinal attachments appear to be in himself. The need for attachment as a primary motivational force is as strong in the schizoid person as in any other human being.” For Chadwick (2014), the question however, is whether the intense inner life is, “due to a desire for hungry incorporation of external objects or due to withdrawal from the outer to a presumed safer inner world”. With such concerns, would Oppenheimer have had more than the merest discernment of Strauss’s anguish at mortification?

Hatred, self-hatred, and revenge are prominent themes that are imbued throughout the film – from Oppenheimer’s attempt to leave a poison-laced apple for the lecturer who had humiliated him, to Strauss’s decades-long revenge acted out on a national and political scale, as well as to the outcome of the Manhattan Project (the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which played out on a global scale, in a world riven by hatred). Lieberman (2004) notes how “the relatively free access to aggression enables the person with the Narcissistic Personality Disorder to aggressively coerce the environment into resonating with his projections.” Strauss’s success in this coercive endeavour resonated nationally and ultimately resulted in the dethroning of Oppenheimer.

Libbey (2011) describes how “inflated” narcissists and revenge seekers use “debasement of the object [and] attacking the other, in order to aggrandize and re-stabilize the self.” Fighting fire with fire or ‘arighting the scales of justice’ in a split world populated only by winners and losers, and they can only be winners. Unable to recover from the plunge into mortification or to re-establish the other as the approving object, they preemptively expel impending feelings of shame and defectiveness by humiliating the other, destroying him, and projecting their defective self-experiences onto self-objects.

As an aside, with an eye on word-play, we see how the rupture of fusion, in relationships, both personal and interpersonal, may link to a fission leading to catastrophic destruction not only in the lives of Strauss and Oppenheimer, but also on a global scale, with deaths estimated at over 53 million. What a tragic enormity of loss and annihilatory destruction has resulted from splitting in its multifarious meanings!

Whilst Strauss believed Oppenheimer had poisoned the scientific community against him, it was his own enactment – the accusations against Oppenheimer coupled with the consequent destruction of his reputation – that unmasked Strauss’s self-absorption rendering him unsuitable for the role he so intensely desired. Hence, hoist by his own petard, this destruction was visited on Strauss himself.

According to Katz (2004), the representations of the sadistic object/self-in-exile part-unit elicit for the schizoid experiences of sadism, devaluation or deprivation, especially in response to efforts to self-activate. Early in the film we are introduced to the terror of Oppenheimer’s dream-world, possibly an indicator of his ontological insecurity. Pearson (2004) notes how, “schizoid individuals report that the only role open to them in the family was one of being a useful tool to save the needs of the parent. Like a genie in a bottle, they were called on to be of use and then returned to oblivion.” How well this translates to Oppenheimer’s experience in being summoned to serve his country and then discarded to return to a decades-long oblivion. The malevolent coercion of the object is clearly demonstrated, necessitating his fighting hard during the hearing to preserve the integrity of the self, even at such ruinous cost.

The lived experience underlying Oppenheimer’s understanding leads him to a knowledge of his own potential to destroy (such as the episode of the poisoned apple) and to an awareness of how, quoting from Hindu scriptures, he notes, “I am become death, destroyer of worlds.” Perhaps such awareness may also permit remorse, an attempt to reverse such destruction. Whilst it is possible to retrieve the toxic apple, once unleashed, the calamitous effects of the nuclear bomb cannot be undone and still persist. Instead he is obliged to experience his powerlessness, and even mockery, at the hands of politically dominant self-interest.

Using Pearson’s (2004) vivid metaphors, we see Oppenheimer, “unable to navigate the Scylla of connection, with the corresponding risks of sadism and appropriation, and the Charybdis of utter isolation”. And so he is left, as we are, without the capacity to alter the trajectory of the race to arms, and the extinction it presages, thus propagating his own ontological insecurity onto the world. We recall Einstein’s prediction to Oppenheimer that, “now it’s your turn to deal with the consequences of your achievement.”

In this analysis of the flawed personalities and their interactions, we’re posed with a significant conundrum: are we too, fated, doomed even, by the limitations imposed upon us by the all too human frailty of our flawed psychic structures that leave us on the brink of calamity? And what is necessitated to change these trajectories of existential significance or will we forever be held hostage to our own psychic deficiencies?

After working for some years in the area of parental bereavement, Anne-Marie Lydall attained a D.Litt. et Phil from Rand Afrikaans University in 2004. She subsequently joined IMI where she enrolled in the three year post-graduate training in 2015. She is currently a faculty member, with a special interest in neurobiology.

---

We would love to hear your views: please send your contribution to Anne-Marie or Candice.

Look out for the article in our next issue: “Indecision as a defence mechanism in Schizoid Personality Disorder” by Dr. M. Aydin.

---

A TREASURE TO LISTEN TO

WHY AGES 0-3 ARE VITAL FOR HEALTHY CHILD DEVELOPMENT

In this podcast from The Relationship School, Dr. Judith Pearson delves into the early childhood development and why the ages of 0 – 3 years are a vital period for healthy psychological development.

Dr. Pearson is a Clinical Psychologist and Director of the International Masterson Institute. She completed her undergraduate studies at Brooklyn College, and obtained her PhD. at Fordham. Highly experienced, she worked for 12 years at a psychiatric hospital, becoming a ward supervisor. Subsequently, she trained under Dr. James Masterson, completing a 3-year post-graduate course where he was also her supervisor. Having become the Clinical Director of the Institute, she took over the responsibility of running the Institute when Dr. Masterson became too ill to continue.

---

Article References

Chadwick, P.K. (2014). “Peer-professional first person account: before psychosis–schizoid personality from the inside”. Schizophrenia Bulletin. 40 (3): 483–486.

Daws, L. (2013). Is there anybody out there? The Mastersonian Approach to the Schizoid Dilemma. Downloaded from the WorldWideWeb 20 August 2023. https://www.contemporarypsychotherapy.org/volume-5-issue-1-spring-2013/is-there-anybody-out-there/

Fairbairn, W.R.D. (1952). Psychoanalytic studies of the personality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Guntrip, H. (1969). Schizoid Phenomena, Object Relations and the Self. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Katz, J.S. (2004). The Schizoid Personality Disorder In Masterson, J.F. and Lieberman, A.R. (Eds) (2004). A therapist’s Guide to the Personality Disorders: The Masterson Approach. Phoenix, Zeig, Tucker & Theisen.

Lewis Strauss In ‘Oppenheimer’, explained: Why did he despise Robert. Downloaded from the WorldWideWeb 20 August 2023https://dmtalkies.com/lewis-strauss-in-oppenheimer-explained-2023-christopher-nolan-film/

Libbey, M. (2011). On Shame in Narcissistic States of Consciousness: A Clinical Illustration. In Druck, A.B. Ellman, C.S., Freeman, N. & Thaler, A. A New Freudian Synthesis. New York: Routledge.

Lieberman, A.R. (2004). The Narcissistic Personality Disorder In Masterson, J.F. and Lieberman, A.R. (Eds) (2004). A therapist’s Guide to the Personality Disorders: The Masterson Approach. Phoenix, Zeig, Tucker & Theisen.

Masterson, J.F. (2000). The Personality Disorders: A New Look at the Developmental Self and object Relations Approach. Phoenix: Zeig, Tucker & Theisen.

Masterson, J.F. and Lieberman, A.R. (Eds) (2004). A therapist’s Guide to the Personality Disorders: The Masterson Approach. Phoenix, Zeig, Tucker & Theisen.

Pearson, J. (2004) The Masterson Approach to Differential Diagnosis In Masterson, J.F. and Lieberman, A.R. (Eds) (2004). A therapist’s Guide to the Personality Disorders: The Masterson Approach. Phoenix, Zeig, Tucker & Theisen.

The Life of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Life before the Manhattan Project. Downloaded from from the WorldWideWeb 20 August 2023: https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/the-life-of-j-robert-oppenheimer-life-before-the-manhattan-project.htm
31 August 2023.

---