The Last Time: Commentary on Paper by Stuart A. Pizer

Pizer presents poetic details of his patient's complex therapy and analysis. This commentary examines one moment in the treatment that may have violated the potential in potential space. The question is raised as to the impact of such a moment.     

The Analyst's Uses of Theory and the Theory the Analyst Uses: Reply to Commentary

Where Slochower focuses her discussion on the analyst's multiform uses of theory, I focus my response on how the theory we each use informs a quite different way of understanding what is at issue for my patient in the apparent disengagement that marks her quest for help. More broadly, I consider how the theoretical perspective Slochower brings to her rendering of my clinical understanding and position makes for a reading that diverges significantly from my own view of what transpired in the treatment process I present.     

An Interpersonal Perspective on Dreams: Commentary on Paper by Hazel Ipp

A basic rhythm of breakdown–recovery, with many offshoots and permutations, characterizes aspects of psychic life. This rhythm threads its way through Elkin's, Winnicott's, and Bion's work and plays an important role in the unconscious processing of affects. If this rhythm is damaged or jammed, affect processing goes awry. Dream work helps initiate affect processing, a kind of emotional digestion. If the dream work's rhythm of breakdown–recovery is damaged, one lives in a state of chronic emotional indigestion or starvation. Clinical work, including a child's dream of the World Trade Center disaster, illustrates the discussion.     

A Warrior's Stance: Commentary on Paper by Terry Marks-Tarlow

This commentary highlights specific aspects of a psychoanalytic complexity perspective in considering and discussing Terry Marks-Tarlow's article, “Merging and Emerging: A Nonlinear Portrait of Intersubjectivity During Psychotherapy.” The advantages of a complexity theory sensibility reside in the areas of (a) providing a robust theoretical framework for understanding the sources and phenomenology of complex emotional life and (b) understanding the clinical implications of thinking through a complexity theory lens. The latter involves examining the attitudes that emanate from such a revolutionary perspective and their impact on the therapeutic relationship and on therapeutic action and change. Special emphasis is placed on the distinction between two vital dimensions of psychoanalytic discourse: the phenomenological and the explanatory. This distinction is used as a lens through which the author considers the essential themes of understanding the complexity of the multiple sources of personal lived experience and their concomitant meanings, personal situtatedness (or “thrownness”), emotional responsibility, and personal freedom.     

Applications,Implications, Complications: Reply to Reviews by Elkind,Gerson, and Levine

The author appreciates the careful reading and thoughtful reviews by Sue Elkind, Sam Gerson, and Howard Levine. Elkind's review particularly captures and articulates many of the key ideas in the book Building Bridges: The Negotiation of Paradox in Psychoanalysis and creatively applies concepts of negotiation, paradox, an inherently multiple “distributed self,” and metaphor in her own work consulting on treatment impasses. Gerson incisively focuses on the core idea of recognizing, accepting, and bridging differences and contradictions in personal, and national, perspectives; he also articulates an understanding of the attempt of relational analytic writers to bridge the intrapsychic and the interpersonal with due recognition of each. The author replies extensively to Levine's comparison of Pizer's work with that of Semrad and other “classical” analysts and challenges Levine's premise that a relational perspective, grounded as it is in a two-person contextual psychology, ignores or devalues interpretation, insight, free association, and autonomous mental functioning. Quoting from clinical material in his book, Pizer presents the outcome of a “relational” analysis in terms of the patient's increased access to internal “potential space,” unconscious experience, curiosity, and reflectiveness about the mental life of self and other, and an increased ability to value personal experience in relationship and in solitude.     

I've Got You Under My Skin Reply to Commentaries

In replying to the commentaries by Adrienne Harris and Barbara Pizer, I further elaborate some of the ideas set forth in “Something Is Happening Here.” In particular, some considerations are offered with regard to work with trauma survivors from a body-centered energy therapy perspective. I also further consider some of the complexities of touch in a psychoanalytic treatment and the nature of “inadvertency.”     

Homoerotic Countertransference The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name?

Despite the recent interest in erotic countertransference and self-disclosure, little has been written about these phenomena when both analyst and patient are the same gender. Since homoerotic feelings can surface in any treatment, regardless of the participants' sexual orientation, this may well be a phobic avoidance that restricts many treatments, as well as our profession. I propose that the analyst's awareness of homoerotic feelings in the countertransference—including struggling with ways to express them—ultimately can create an atmosphere of safety. I offer an extended case example of one man with whom I colluded to ignore frightening aspects of his sexual fantasies. It was only by using my erotic countertransference, especially at a charged and pivotal moment, that I was able to help the patient begin to integrate split-off aspects of his sexuality.     

Self‐Consciousness,Normativity and Abysmal Freedom

This article critically examines Christine Korsgaard's claim in her Tanner Lectures to find in self‐consciousness itself the norms that would answer our need for practical reasons, insofar as that need is constituted through our capacity for reflection. It shows that the way in which Korsgaard sees “the need for a reason” as arising out of self‐consciousness implies a dilemma: on the one hand, we want as the ultimate source of our reasons an authority of which we cannot coherently demand legitimation in turn; on the other, our freedom demands that nothing count for us as a reason except insofar as it is in turn endorsed in reflection. Relying on resources drawn from the tradition of reflection, this paper argues that Korsgaard's attempt to resolve this tension is unsuccessful and appeals, in response to this failure, to faith in the authority of our reasons in the absence of foundational justification of them.