The third and probably most controversial section of the book is on alternative theories and whether these should be taught to candidates at psychoanalytic institutes. Esman reports that in the colloquium on alternative theories he taught at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute, "Kleinian theory is criticized for . . . its concretism, its assumption of high-level cognitive capacities in the neonate, its assumption of innate knowledge, its neglect of environmental and interactional factors of development, and so forth" (pp. 85–86). Self psychology is criticized with respect to "its dismissal of drive/defense or conflict theory, its unifocal interpersonal etiologic concepts, its idealization of empathy as a therapeutic treatment" (p. 86), and "the narrativists and hermeneuticists may have unwisely challenged the biological underpinnings of psychoanalysis and its status in the community of science with their, at times, obfuscatory effort to distinguish causes from reasons for behavior" (p. 86). At the same time, the values of these contributions are also recognized and discussed. The object relations theories of Winnicott and Fairbairn are criticized for their "lack of any systematic theory building, the downgrading of any drive/defense conflicts, the almost exclusion of later developmental considerations in their zeal to demonstrate the primacy of preoedipal concerns" (p. 87). A considerable debate then ensues as to whether these alternative theories should be taught in a psychoanalytic institute and, if so, at what level of training they should be introduced. According to Brenner, "they share one thing, and that is they all try either to ignore or minimize the importance of childhood instinctual conflict" (p. 100).