English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

I respond to discussions by Garth Stevens and Julie Gerhardt and elaborate first on Stevens’ clinical musings about parental haunting in my patient’s case history, and the relatively unexplored triadic inflection. His larger question about the role of language in communication between psychoanalysts is addressed, while his question about the possibilities and limitations of pluralism and diversity is incorporated in my response to Gerhardt. Gerhardt’s discussion, well-formulated and often insightful, also evokes feelings of intersubjective disconnect, as some of her reformulations of my material feel superimposed and substitutive rather than complementary and additive. This leads to a consideration of the influence of psychoanalytic diversity on contemporary psychoanalytic fractionation and sectarianism. These are reflected in training institutes and the communication of psychoanalysts from different orientations with one another, limiting possibilities for a more integrative pluralism and genuine intersubjectivity in psychoanalytic exchange.

Intersubjective Exchange between Discussants and Author: Reply to Garth Stevens and Julie Gerhardt