ABSTRACT
The second chapter examines earlier conservative and radical critiques of the concept. The conservative critique holds that the term is misused and/or misapplied in clinical practice (Macalpine, 1950; Arlow & Brenner, 1964; Gill, 1984a). The implication is that it should be revised or clarified. The radical critique suggests that the term—no matter how well it is clarified—leads to the genetic fallacy and, behind it, a morality of maturity (Mitchell, 1988; Inderbitzin & Levy, 2000; Rizzolo, 2016). The implication is that it should be abandoned in favor of a more nuanced sense of the infusion of past and present.
