Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To review an author’s works published in PEP-Web…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

The Author Section is a useful way to review an author’s works published in PEP-Web. It is ordered alphabetically by the Author’s surname. After clicking the matching letter, search for the author’s full name.

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

Mills, J. (2020). Relational polemics. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 101(2):375-376.

(2020). International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 101(2):375-376

Letter to the Editors

Relational polemics

Jon Mills

Dear Editor,

Eyal Rozmarin's (2019) recent review of my book on a critique of contemporary psychoanalysis is a polemical dismissal based on a biased political agenda. The review does not adequately capture the scope and depth of the work, is not a true rendition of what I actually wrote, is laced with rhetoric and sophistry, and is intellectually dishonest. First of all, the book is titled Conundrums (Mills 2012), not Relational Conundrums. Was this a slip? Is this a projection of Rozmarian's own ambivalence, or an indication that the relational school does indeed present its own theoretical challenges? Secondly, Rozmarin does not identify himself to the reader as an Associate Editor of Psychoanalytic Dialogues, arguably the leading relational journal in the world, who also trained in the New York University Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy & Psychoanalysis, the leading relational training centre in the United States, and has been a long-time collaborator with Adriene Harris, Muriel Dimen, and other noted relational authors who he charges me of mischaracterizing. I find these omissions a palpable conflict of interest given that his allegiances are not disclosed to the reader whom he is intent on deceiving by attempting to camouflage his political identifications.

After a gracious introduction, my detailed critique is reduced rather abruptly to a crass denial of the validity of my arguments as being “uncritical,” “simplistic,” and “distorted” (p.

[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 © 2020, 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.