Eric,

I am not familiar with Wolff's paper, nor am I an expert on theories derived
from observational research.  Certainly, environmental factors play a role in
the choices (conscious and unconscious) people make to view themselves and
others in a particular way, or to deal with their internal conflicts by this
or that means (i.e. differences in "pathology").  This is seen dramatically
by anyone who works with children (as I do), where the impact of the parents
(and of the child's environment on whole) is undeniable, and yet different
children within the same environment often view those outside realities in
quite different ways--in terms of their psychic reality, as you point out.

I think differences in the relative emphases on phantasy versus reality
(which seems akin to the differences between genetic versus environmental
factors which Freud spoke of) may well be a useful point of departure in
understanding the pluralism in psychoanalysis today, as you suggest.
 Analytic theories differ in the extent to which they emphasize these two
poles--from those which highlight intrapsychic factors, personal desire, and
phantasy,  to those which look to the environment, "reality", and
relationships in accounting for psychopathology and internal conflict.

What I personally find most valuable and central about psychoanalysis is its
revelation (and its capacity to reveal through the associative method) the
powerful influence of phantasy on people's internally-experienced
construction of reality (psychic reality), and thus of their experience of
themselves and of others (the first, "genetic" pole).  Although observational
research and findings remind us of the need to respect environmental or
external factors (from the subjective point of view of our patients),  I'm
not sure that this is the essence of what psychoanalysis is about, at least
from the view of clinical psychoanalytic work.  After all, what can one do
with a patient about what happened in reality, other than to understand the
internal meanings that the event(s) had for the patient, and to explain why
it may have led the patient to certain choices in dealing with themselves in
a particular manner (as an avenue to helping the patient consider other
choices which may be more satisfying and less distressing to them).

The problem with a theory which emphasizes reality or the environment as a
verifiable constant, is that it does not account for differences in the
unconscious phantasies which people have about what reality is and
differences in pathology between people living in the same environment, so
I'm not sure that such theories ought to be considered a part of
psychoanalysis proper (though they may be useful to bear in mind, and bridges
may be built). Perhaps this is what Wolff is suggesting--I am not sure.

Regards,

David Mittelman
(Michigan)