Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To zoom in or out on PEP-Web…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Are you having difficulty reading an article due its font size?  In order to make the content on PEP-Web larger (zoom in), press Ctrl (on Windows) or ⌘Command (on the Mac) and the plus sign (+).  Press Ctrl (on Windows) or ⌘Command (on the Mac) and the minus sign (-) to make the content smaller (zoom out).   To go back to 100% size (normal size), press Ctrl (⌘Command  on the Mac) + 0 (the number 0).

Another way on Windows: Hold the Ctrl key and scroll the mouse wheel up or down to zoom in and out (respectively) of the webpage. Laptop users may use two fingers and separate them or bring them together while pressing the mouse track pad.

Safari users: You can also improve the readability of you browser when using Safari, with the Reader Mode: Go to PEP-Web. Right-click the URL box and select Settings for This Website, or go to Safari > Settings for This Website. A large pop-up will appear underneath the URL box. Look for the header that reads, “When visiting this website.” If you want Reader mode to always work on this site, check the box for “Use Reader when available.”

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Benjamin, J. (2013). Thinking Together, Differently: Thoughts on Bromberg and Intersubjectivity. Contemp. Psychoanal., 49(3):356-379.

(2013). Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 49(3):356-379

Thinking Together, Differently: Thoughts on Bromberg and Intersubjectivity

Jessica Benjamin, Ph.D.

This is a personal response to the interview of Philip Bromberg in this journal in which I discuss my intellectual resonance with his thinking as well as some important conceptual differences. In order to elaborate some of the invaluable aspects of his thought, as well as questions that arise from it, I refer to Philip's other writings. Although I base my agreement on ideas about affect regulation, attachment, dissociation, and intersubjectivity, the focus of my discussion is the difference between thinking in terms of a movement from dissociation to conflict versus a movement from dissociation to recognition. I suggest that some of the issues Philip describes as the problem of accepting the “giftie” of being shown how we appear to the other and the “imposition of meaning” can be further elaborated in terms of my distinction between complementarity and thirdness. I discuss one of the cases in the recent book, Shadow of the Tsunami, in order to illustrate how the analyst's dissociation relates specifically to difficulties acknowledging conflict between “good” and “bad,” loving and hateful aspects of both self and other.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2019, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.