• search hit 153 of 569
Back to Result List

Reply to commentary

  • This. Reply to the commentaries by Corbett, Hansell, and Stern explores whether Lacan's concept of the real can – or should – be translated into more readily recognizable terms. It extends our previous discussion of impossibility by arguing that not all ideas and experiences can be brought within the realm of the known and familiar. We suggest that impossibilities of meaning should not be understood primarily in phenomenological terms, and we demur from the assessment that our concept of impossibility offers nothing for clinical work. Claiming that what resists meaning also impedes relationality, we encourage relational theorists to address the nonrelational processes that subtend relationality, including the relation between analyst and patient. We acknowledge that the theory of impossibility – or what we now call >negative mediation< – raises a fundamental challenge to relational theory, but we insist that disruptions of relationality need not be considered pathological. Taking into account the nonrelational may enhance rather than impoverish relational psychoanalysis.

Export metadata

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar
Metadaten
Author:Cynthia Dyess, Tim Dean
Parent Title (English):Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 10 (2000), pp. 787-794.
Document Type:Articles
Language:English
Year of first Publication:2000
Release Date:2017/11/20
Format:xerox upon request / Fotokopie auf Anfrage
IdNo:Dyess_C_Dean_T_2000a
Erich Fromm's Library and Erich Fromm Archive:Articles / Artikel
Licence (German):
Einverstanden ✔
Diese Webseite verwendet technisch erforderliche Session-Cookies. Durch die weitere Nutzung der Webseite stimmen Sie diesem zu. Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier.