Customer Service | Help | FAQ | 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.

Aron, L. (1997). Are We To Have a Meeting of Minds?: A Reply to the Discussions of A Meeting of Minds. Psychoanal. Dial., 7:885-896.

Welcome to PEP Web!

Viewing the full text of this document requires a subscription to PEP Web.

If you are coming in from a university from a registered IP address or secure referral page you should not need to log in. Contact your university librarian in the event of problems.

If you have a personal subscription on your own account or through a Society or Institute please put your username and password in the box below. Any difficulties should be reported to your group administrator.

Username:
Password:

Can't remember your username and/or password? If you have forgotten your username and/or password please click here and log in to the PaDS database. Once there you need to fill in your email address (this must be the email address that PEP has on record for you) and click "Send." Your username and password will be sent to this email address within a few minutes. If this does not work for you please contact your group organizer.

OpenAthens or federation user? Login here.

Not already a subscriber? Order a subscription today.

(1997). Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 7(6):885-896

Are We To Have a Meeting of Minds?: A Reply to the Discussions of A Meeting of Minds Related Papers

Lewis Aron, Ph.D.

It seems quite unlikely that my commentators and I will end this discussion with a meeting of the minds in the sense articulated here by Stolorow to connote agreement and unity of opinion. We are not all going to be of “one mind” about these matters, and that, I believe, is a good thing, for in using the metaphor of a meeting of minds, throughout my book, I tried to be clear to distinguish mutuality from merger or fusion. I do think that as psychoanalytic colleagues we can attempt to understand and even empathize with each other's positions and perspectives on these matters; we may, under the best of circumstances, mutually influence each other so that in a sense we become involved in a “negotiation” of the differences among us, but this hardly requires that we maintain an ideal of mutual consensus, agreement, or lack of conflict. Similarly, in the clinical psychoanalytic situation, the metaphors of mutuality, negotiation, and a meeting of minds are efforts to grapple with our commonality with our patients, our connectedness, and our reciprocal, bidirectional influence, but not to minimize or underplay the important asymmetries, the important differences in our knowledge, power, authority, and responsibilities. In what follows, I try to respond to the numerous criticisms of my work introduced so thoughtfully by the three discussants. I will be neither systematic nor exhaustive, but rather I try to address what seem to me to be central and salient themes.

These introductory remarks take me to the heart of one of the main issues that emerges from these discussions: the question of the “schools”

—————————————

Lewis Aron, Ph.D., ABPP is a Clinical Professor and Supervisor, New York University Postdoctoral Program and Adelphi University, Derner Institute, Postdoctoral Program; and Associate Editor, Psychoanalytic Dialogues.

© 1997 The Analytic Press

- 885 -

[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 © 2017, 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.