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

In her powerful paper, Kuriloff asks us to consider the space “between victims and victimizers.” Rothberg’s conception of the  implicated subject  is formulated to open precisely this space in a sociopolitical context; recent writing by my colleague David Mark and myself, along with other noted Relational thinkers, seeks to elaborate and extend this concept. Kuriloff’s compelling examples, linking the sociohistorical and the interpersonal, provide an opportunity to imagine what the concept of  implication  may add: challenging us to inhabit our position as injurer in relation to the other while simultaneously making it more bearable to do so. The concept presumes multiplicity; we can be both injured and injurer in interpersonal contexts, and proximate to victim in some historical contexts and perpetrator in others. In the intimacy of the dyad or in a large group, inhabiting our own implication facilitates bearing responsibility, witnessing the other, and moving into dialog.

psychoanalytic dialogues

Bearing Implication and the Opening of Potential Space: A Discussion of Emily Kuriloff’s “What Happened to the Baby’s Head? Between Victims and Victimizers”