@article{Stern, author = {Stern, Donnel B.}, title = {Discussion of I. Moses >The misuse of empathy.<}, series = {Contemporary Psychoanalysis, Vol. 24 (1988), pp. 598-611.}, journal = {Contemporary Psychoanalysis, Vol. 24 (1988), pp. 598-611.}, language = {en} } @article{Stern, author = {Stern, Donnel B.}, title = {Discussion of G. Friedman >Keeping the analysis alive and creative.<}, series = {Contemporary Psychoanalysis, Vol. 25 (1989), pp. 346-355.}, journal = {Contemporary Psychoanalysis, Vol. 25 (1989), pp. 346-355.}, language = {en} } @article{Stern, author = {Stern, Donnel B.}, title = {Action, insight, and working through outlines of an integrative approach}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 02 (1992), pp. 331-363.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 02 (1992), pp. 331-363.}, language = {en} } @article{Stern, author = {Stern, Donnel B.}, title = {Commentary on paper by Jody Messier Davies}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 04 (1994), pp. 441-471.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 04 (1994), pp. 441-471.}, abstract = {Whenever the subject is explicitly addressed, all analysts agree that empathic perception is an attitude one takes toward making observations, not a privileged means of perception. Furthermore, analysts seem to agree that observations made with an empathic intention are interpretations like any other observations. Empathy is not a conduit to the patient's inner life. But despite these points of consensus, it often seems to be implied in the psychoanalytic literature, usually unintentionally, that empathy is a privileged means of knowing another person. This undercurrent is sometimes present even in the work of theorists who simultaneously state their opposition to this very point of view. In this paper, after presenting an example from the literature of this kind of contradiction, I, basing my argument in hermeneutics, offer the view that all observation, inside and outside psychoanalysis, is interpretation. Then, turning to the three papers of the symposium individually, I take the perspective that in one way or another they all portray empathic perception as a privileged means of observation. These portrayals are examples of the unconscious politics of theory.}, language = {en} } @article{Stern, author = {Stern, Donnel B.}, title = {False memory? False memory syndrome? The so-called false memory syndrome?}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 06 (1996), pp. 251-266.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 06 (1996), pp. 251-266.}, language = {en} } @article{Stern, author = {Stern, Donnel B.}, title = {Reply to commentary}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 10 (2000), pp. 757-769.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 10 (2000), pp. 757-769.}, abstract = {The insufficiencies that Joan Copjec finds in the work of Judith Butler are the same kind Dyess and Dean want to alert us to in relational psychoanalysis. Two dangers of this nature are reification (that is, the relational position's becoming >the Book<) and a flirtation with superficiality (a potential outcome of believing that all experience can be understood in the terms of social relatedness). Theorizing >the impossibility of meaning< may be a first step in addressing these problems without having to limit the terms of the discussion to nature and nurture, or essence and social construction. But the idea of the Real is inextricably interrelated with, and mutually defined by, other parts of Lacan's theory. And so, if we simply import into relational psychoanalysis Lacan's conception of the Real, we are mixing apples and oranges and thereby risking conceptual confusion. We should instead use Lacan's idea as inspiration for the construction of a conception of >the impossibility of meaning< that can be used in theorizing the particular kind of problems relational psychoanalysis sets itself.}, language = {en} } @article{Stern, author = {Stern, Donnel B.}, title = {Resentment, indignation, entitlement the transformation of unconscious wish into need}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 11 (2001), pp. 451-468.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 11 (2001), pp. 451-468.}, abstract = {My approach in this review of Irwin Hoffman's Ritual and Spontaneity in the Psychoanalytic Process is historical and explicative. I discuss the book's reprinted works in their original publication sequence in order to highlight the emergence of themes over time. I then discuss the chapters written expressly for this volume in light of these themes.}, language = {en} } @article{Stern, author = {Stern, Donnel B.}, title = {Language and the Nonverbal as a Unity: Discussion of >Where Is the Action in the >Talking Cure