Reply to Reviews by Slavin,Stein, and Stern

Major points of three reviews—by Malcolm Owen Slavin, Ruth Stein, and Donnel Stern—are highlighted and further elaborated, particularly the broad existential foundations of dialectical constructivism, the importance of dialectical thinking, and the centrality of the struggle with epistemological and moral uncertainty in this perspective. Several counterpoints are formulated—for example, the seemingly paradoxical commitment to a definitive theory of the process, the place of objective facts and universal principles in experience that is fundamentally ambiguous, and the pragmatic necessity for commitment to particular understandings and courses of action in the light of the passage of time and of mortality. Some clinical examples are presented to illustrate the dialectic of ritual and spontaneity as reflected in the tailoring of the frame to suit particular analytic relationships. Precursors of dialectical constructivism in the author's early work are identified.     

Continuing the Dialogue between Psychoanalysis and Somatic Experiencing: Reply to Bass,Leddick, Levine,Blakeslee, Sylvae,and Lombardi

I had expected that bringing together psychoanalysis and Somatic Experiencing (SE) might be controversial. That expectation was certainly not disappointed. Although Bass resonated with much of my thinking, he also challenged the whole idea of integrating these two forms of treatment. Leddick provided extensive critique, though more about how I drew upon SE, not so much the fact that I did. While Lombardi appreciated aspects of my work with the patient, he utterly rejected the whole notion of drawing upon SE, viewing it as mechanistic, simplistic, narrowly behavioral, and merely about modulation. To address these critiques, I revisit here the clinical process with Sue, highlighting how SE is about so much more than just modulation. SE can deepen our forms of analytic holding and can help patients (re)connect with their bodies in ways that are emotionally alive, intimate, and healing. In revisiting the clinical process, I draw upon Levine, Blakeslee, and Sylvae’s in-depth discussion of SE: its goals, principles, and techniques. Though I agree with Bass’s and Lombardi’s concerns about “integration” of psychoanalysis and SE, I do not propose integration of the two, but rather interweaving of one into the other. In essence, I seek here to continue to illustrate how SE can interweave into our work, enriching our psychoanalytic ways of looking, listening, and responding.     

Responses to Commentaries by Ferro and Civitarese,Carnochan, Peltz and Goldberg,and Levine

I offer responses to the discussions of my paper written by Ferro and Civitarese, Carnochan, Peltz and Goldberg, and Levine.     

Reply to Reviews of Awakening the Dreamer: Clinical Journeys by Philip M. Bromberg

I reply here to reviews by three inspiring thinkers, Ethel Person, Susan Sands, and Allan Schore who, though uniquely different from one another in their conceptual frames of reference, share a sensibility as clinicians and creative scholars that has led them to engage and appreciate my work in depth while enriching it with their individual perspectives. Ethel Person's review is meaningful to me for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that we think very much alike about “how we are” with patients despite the diversity in our families of origin. Her thinking, which extends the boundaries established by any one school of thought, transcends doctrine, especially that of “technique.” I am equally grateful to Susan Sands, whose review stimulated a dialogue between us about the similarities and differences in our views of the analyst's personal role in enactments with severe trauma survivors and whether there is reason to distinguish between life-threatening and developmental trauma. My reply to Allan Schore's review satisfies a long-standing wish to engage with him in dialogue about what he refers to in his review as “a remarkable overlap between Bromberg's work in clinical psychoanalysis and my work in developmental neuropsychoanalysis, a deep resonance between his treatment model and my regulation theory” (this issue, p. 755). In my reply I comment from my own vantage point on how our shared commitment to an interpersonal and intersubjective perspective—my interpersonal/relational treatment model and his “Interpersonal Neurobiology” led us to arrive at overlapping views on developmental trauma, attachment, the dyadic regulation of states of consciousness, and dissociation.     

Shakespeare,Psychoanalysis and Creativity: Commentary on Paper by Lauren Levine

This discussion speaks to the creative dimension in the clinical encounter described by Levine in her paper. In particular, it addresses the creativity necessary to move beyond impasses in the treatment. The positive and negative associations to enactments are discussed as well as the creative possibilities offered in dreamwork and the analytic relationship.     

Memory,Cognitive Processing,and the Process of “Listening” A Reply to Thomas and Levine

In a recent issue of Human Communication Research, Thomas and Levine (1994) explored the “listening” construct, examining listening from both a cognitive and behavioral point of view. In so doing, they made several inaccurate statements about my own research and positions that I have taken concerning listening. Linear models of memory (first short-term memory, then intermediate storage, then long-term memory) do not describe listening. What I have written in the past is that, like memory, listening has short-term and long-term elements, that listening research ought to examine short-term processing more carefully than before, and that any general definition of listening ought to include all elements, including long-term elements. Additional misstatements appear concerning the role of memory in the assessment of listening. In addition to these misstatements, they ignored some extremely important constructs in listening, principally that of listener involvement. In addition, the model that they present as a causal explanation for listening behaviors has several serious flaws. Nonetheless, in focusing on some nonverbal indicators of listening, they have made a real contribution to the understanding of listening as a communication skill.     

Implications of Cybernetic Epistemology for Clinical Research: A Reply to Howard

This response to Howard's article deals with the application of cybernetic epistemology to clinical research and practice. Implications for scientific research are discussed.     

A Plea for a Measure of Cautious Optimism: Reply to Book Reviews

The author responds to four reviews of his book Impossible Training. He describes how the book came into being, discusses his attitude to the Freud—Ferenczi and Klein—Winnicott debates, and raises the dangers of rigid views as to what is truly psychoanalytic and what is truly relational. The global scene of psychoanalytic training today is discussed. It is suggested that critiques do have an impact on psychoanalytic education and that in spite of its flaws and inner contradictions, this education raised generations of sophisticated thinkers and sensitive clinicians.     

Reply to Commentaries by Crastnopol,Goldman, and Mitchell

In replying to the commentaries by Margaret Crastnopol (2001), Dodi Goldman (2001), and Stephen A. Mitchell (2001), I address the relationship of modernism to postmodernism, with emphasis on the possible conflicts between therapeutic effectiveness and the postmodern view of experience in general, and core affect in particular, as culturally constructed. I elaborate on the claim I made in “Analyzing Multiplicity” (Fairfield, 2001) that developmental schemas, however central to psychoanalysis at the present time, are vulnerable theoretically. Difficulties in bringing terms such as agency and authenticity into a postmodern paradigm are considered. In discussing some common misunderstandings of the critical approach known as deconstruction, I emphasize its ethical import and its kinship to psychoanalytic theory and practice. Special attention is paid to deconstructing the binary categorization American/not-American and to exploring the distinctively American origins of some current models of subjectivity.     

Urban School-Based Family Counseling: Role Definition,Practice Applications,and Training Implications

The authors describe an expanded role for counselors in urban school settings that can improve the linkages among families, schools, and communities: school-based family counseling. The focus of this process is to assist children in becoming more successful in the classroom by increasing family and community involvement in addressing specific barriers to learning. The function of school-based family counseling, strategies, and challenges for implementation of this process; a case study of a school-based family counseling intervention; and implications for counselor training are presented. Benefits of the school-based family counseling model for diverse students, parents, schools, and communities also are discussed.     

Brain Science as the Analytic Fourth: Commentary on Paper by Michael J. Gerson

I support Michael J. Gerson’s aim to further the dialogue between neuroscience and psychoanalysis, especially in light of increasingly sophisticated brain imaging. Enhanced capabilities for simultaneous brain measurements inch interpersonal neurobiology ever closer to the psychoanalytic concept of intersubjective space. While it is inherently meaningful to distinguish between self and identity using lenses of brain science, Gerson’s argument would be significantly bolstered by a developmental perspective.