I will report criticisms of Westen's review and present my own ideas
about how a psychodynamic psychology can be developed:
The Drew Westen articles referred to in earlier messages have not been
well received in my circles.
I will describe the reasons:

Westen's articles take the following form:
1. Freud has been declared dead. This is not true. Research is proving
that he was correct about much, and. where Freud was wrong, modern
psychoanalysis has corrected him
2  There is empirical psychological research shows that early family
experiences influence later personality, that there is subconscious
mental activity, and that memories can be tied to emotional states. All
of this is what Freud claimed.
3. See, Freud isn't dead, after all, and psychoanalysis is headed to a
new union with research psychology.

These are the problems with Westen's reviews: he is selective about
topics; he does not do a comprehensive review of all the salient
research  issues..

Westen's conclusions involve  BROAD GENERALIZATIONS. Yes, early
experiences influence later behavior, but this is a truism which no
approach to psychology would dispute. The particulars of Freudian ideas
are not confirmed by such general results. Yes, there is subconscious
mental activity (discovered years before Freud even got to medical
school), but it is NOT the Freudian (or the psychoanalytic)
subconscious.  So far, the influence of subconscious ideas has been
shown to be weak and transitory. It is a "dumb" unconscious which does
not have the devious and prodigious capacities which psychoanalysis
ascribes to (a "smart") subconscious processes. Thus, the psychoanalytic
idea about the operations of an unconscious mind is not at all
confirmed. etc.

Westen is too polemical to be seen as objective. So am I in my messages,
but I am not writing a review article in a psychology journal (where an
objective stance is expected).

Westen hopes that research psychology would see that  "psychodynamic"
mental operations are important parts of human functioning. Okay, but I
think he has it backwards. Psychodynamic ideas should be developed from
what is already empirically confirmed in psychology. It is possible to
have a psychodynamic theory which could be inductive (from the data to
generalizations). The present deductive approach (from theory to
specific predictions) has not worked. It has resulted in wild theorizing
(and dangerous theorizing, recently) and hypotheses which defy research
(a theory predicts ALL possible outcomes from a particular hypothesized
cause.)

Hope all is well with everyone.

Howard