Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To sort articles by author…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

While performing a search, you can sort the articles by Author in the Search section. This will rearrange the results of your search alphabetically according to the author’s surname. This feature is useful to quickly locate the work of a specific author.

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

Gediman, H.K. (2006). Reply to Commentaries. Psychoanal. Dial., 16(3):305-316.

(2006). Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 16(3):305-316

Reply to Commentaries Related Papers

Helen K. Gediman, Ph.D., ABBP

Responding to these three commentaries is Hardly A neu tral task. I have decided to begin with the one that is most negative toward me and my work, Stephen Hartman's, and then to proceed on to one that is far more constructive, Christopher Bonovitz's. My last re ply is addressed to Joyce Slochower's commentary, because hers is most in keeping with a major aim of my paper: It provides space for respectfully building bridges between and among multiple psychoanalytic perspectives. When appropriate, I refer back to my earlier responses as I move on to the last.

In all three replies, I use the term Relational, with ac apital R, to refer to Relational Theory or the Relational School of psychoanalysis. I use the term relational, with a lowercase r, to refer to a relational perspective or point of view that may be held by various analysts from various schools, including many contemporary Freudians whose work is informed by this perspective. I aim to explicate these differences gradually and contextually as I move along.

Reply to Stephen Hartman

Hartman's basic assumption, which underlies his fundamentally negative and often disrespectful criticism of my ideas, is that there is not room for co existence between or shifting back and forth or for building bridges between and among psychoanalytic paradigms. He believes that Relational theory has already replaced the traditional models simply because it has, and that is that. I have spent the last 35 years of my life advocating for pluralism, di versity, multiple models, and other forms of multiplicity, in an attempt to reconcile and work with the best that all psychoanalytic schools have to offer.

[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 © 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.