Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To quickly return to the issue’s Table of Contents from an article…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

You can go back to to the issue’s Table of Contents in one click by clicking on the article title in the article view. What’s more, it will take you to the specific place in the TOC where the article appears.

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

Blass, R. (2019). Response to Jay Greenberg's letter. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 100(1):150-151.

(2019). International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 100(1):150-151

Response to Jay Greenberg's letter

Rachel Blass

Jay Greenberg opens his letter with the claim that my characterization of him as “a leading figure in American Relational psychoanalysis” (Blass, 2018, 950) is factually inaccurate. I find this strange since his central role in the development of that field is universally acknowledged, including by Greenberg himself, most recently in an interview published in a book of essays by “eminent relational thinkers” (Aron, Grand & Slochower, 2018, 3). Greenberg is also well aware that many analysts maintain, to this day, that he “represents the relational point of view” (Greenberg & Aron, 2018, 35) and regard him as “a relationalist” (ibid., 47) or “an exponent of relational psychoanalysis” (Scarfone, 2010, 984). However, as emphasized in Greenberg's letter, there are analysts (himself included) who do not identify him as relational. Since in my single-line presentation of the authors in this section I aimed to mention only brief and basic facts in consensus, I commented on Greenberg being a leading figure in the relational field and not on whether he currently is (or is not) a relational psychoanalyst.

Greenberg goes on to assume that mischaracterization of him as a relational analyst “certainly” shaped my reading of what he wrote and led me, through intellectually dishonest means and because of my limitations (as expressed in what he believes is my use of an overvalued idea), to misportray his position and then overgeneralize it.

[This is a summary excerpt from the full text of the journal article. The full text of the document is available to journal subscribers on the publisher's website here.]

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.