Refine
Language
Document Type
- Articles (269)
- Reviews (58)
- Books (13)
- Dissertations (5)
- Collections (3)
- Forewords (3)
Year of publication
- 2001 (351) (remove)
Introduction
(2001)
Anthony Bass's paper is viewed from the perspective of the object relations orientation of a member of the British Group of Independent Psychoanalysts. The perceived transference – countertransference >equality< in the interpersonal model is described in the light of the asymmetry of the analytic relationship implied in the object relations relation model used by many Independents. The structuring role of object relationships in analysis is touched on, and the relationship between exploration of the unconscious and internal construction processes is raised. In addition, Bion's model of >O,< which seems to me to reflect many of the inherent qualities of Singer's and Bass's model, is not referred to in Bass's paper. To what extent has Bion's thinking influenced the interpersonal model?
Reply to Orange
(2001)
This. Reply elucidates the ideas originally presented in >Countertransference: Our New Royal Road to the Unconscious< (PD 9/3, 1999) in acknowledgment of Irwin Hirsch's commentary (this issue). It refutes Hirsch's erroneous conception that my paper suggested that the personality of the analyst could be extricated from the interactional matrix of the psychoanalytic relationship and that persons could be separated from their minds. By drawing these false dichotomies, Hirsch only polemicizes rather than clarifies the complex relationship existing between an analyst's subjectivity and his or her personality.
Response to review
(2001)
Elise, in her own erudite and engaging way, addresses the question, >Why won't he really talk to me-< Underpinning her core argument, Elise posits that a >masculine sense of self is felt to be dependent on an impermeable psychic boundary that is not to be penetrated.< In coining male impenetrability as the >citadel complex,< however, Elise introduces a lexicon of battle, polarization, and defense. And it is around this arena of her argument that Wrye raises most of her questions. First, Wrye questions if Elise's conceptualization of a penetrating nipple forcing >Unlawful Entry< into the vulnerable young male psyche reflects the lived, body-based experience of nursing mothers and babies. She also raises the question of whether Elise is describing normal >good-enough< or pathological mothering and fathering? Is she talking about a psychoanalytic model that emphasizes the biological differences between the sexes as opposed to the particular dynamics of the nursing couple? Does Elise's model privilege more binary gender-identity models than models of gender pluralities? Wrye suggests that the paper might actually have been developed as three smaller theoretical papers with more clinical >flesh< on each of the three strands: (a) the forces of bodily development on the male psyche (b) its role in the establishment of gender identity and (c) the >law of the father< in the course of separation-individuation.