Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To contact support with questions…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

You can always contact us directly by sending an email to

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

Williams, P. (2005). Response to Dr Aubry. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 86(2):547.

(2005). International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 86(2):547

Response to Dr Aubry Related Papers

Paul Williams

I am glad that Candy Aubry found my article interesting. I think that the nature of early projective and introjective activity is immensely complex and much remains to be understood. For example, Aubry takes up the question of bodily suffering whilst suggesting that incorporation ‘remains a phantasy’. Yet it is both for the patients I describe. How? The identificatory trajectory Aubry describes is normative: there are individuals who, in the absence of potential space and a ‘third’ position, assemble pathological identifications around psychotic part-objects. De-idealisation is necessary but, if such part-objects are experienced as a substrate to large areas of personality, de-idealisation can be equated with loss of the sense of self. This is one of the challenges we face in treating individuals with psychosis.


[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.