@article{Corbett, author = {Corbett, Ken}, title = {Reply to Schwartz}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 11 (2001), pp. 347-355.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 11 (2001), pp. 347-355.}, abstract = {In. Reply to Phillips and Fuss, I consider the developmental action of affinity - in particular, Winnicott's (1958) propositions regarding >ego-relatedness< and >happy play.< Then, in response to questions raised by Fuss, I explore the function of models as tools - and the difficulties we face in changing our developmental vocabulary.}, language = {en} } @article{Corbett, author = {Corbett, Ken}, title = {Reply to Reviews by Cavell, Sorenson, and Smith}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 11 (2001), pp. 313-335.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 11 (2001), pp. 313-335.}, abstract = {At both ends of the century, a border between the aberrant-marginal them and the ideal-central us has been constructed around and through the homosexual. I challenge the insufficiency of this characterization, so that we may learn more, not only about homosexuality, but also about the ways in which all human development is infused with an interplay between centrality and marginality. I argue that traditional developmental models are dominated by the normative logic of centrality, with limited accounting for the developmental necessity of marginality, whereas postmodern theories of subjectivity overvalue the potential of the margin and fail to account for the significance of similarity and coherence in human relations. I then use that criticism as a platform for proposing five quasi-axioms toward a new developmental model. Central to this new model, which employs constructs derived from chaos and systems theories, is the interplay of centrality and marginality in any given life.}, language = {en} }