Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To print an article…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

To print an article, click on the small Printer Icon located at the top right corner of the page, or by pressing Ctrl + P. Remember, PEP-Web content is copyright.

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

Stern, S. (1994). Reply to Commentaries. Psychoanal. Dial., 4(3):371-388.

(1994). Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 4(3):371-388

Reply to Commentaries Related Papers

Steven Stern, PSYD

I would like to begin by thanking the authors who have graciously taken the time to write the foregoing commentaries. Because Newman's commentary is primarily supportive of points I made in the paper regarding Mitchell's relational conflict model, it did not seem to require a separate reply.

Reply to Tansey and Burke

What is striking about my reaction to Tansey and Burke's critique of my paper is that I agree with much of what they say about the clinical process, but disagree almost entirely with their characterization of my account of the same process. For example, I agree that in practice there is never a “sharp dichotomy” between (to use my language) Type I and Type II transferences or projective identifications, but I disagree that I argue (even implicitly) for such a dichotomy or that it is required by the integrated model I advocate in the paper. I tried to convey the opposite, that both dimensions of the transference are always present, and even offered the idea that the relatively enduring compromise between these two transference tendencies and the defenses associated with them, constitutes what we otherwise refer to as character structure. I reemphasized the same point when I said that even in the midst of Type I reenactments, Type II transferences and projective identifications are operating in some form; and I did so again toward the end of the paper when I argued that Type I and Type II transferences often undergo simultaneous regression as treatment deepens.

I appreciate Tansey and Burke's point that the two “presentations of self” of the patient whom I briefly describe early in the paper each may contain Type I and Type II elements. But I view this as a more fine-grained application of the very kind of analysis I am advocating. I think


© 1994 The Analytic Press

- 371 -

[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 © 2018, 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.