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

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Want to save an article in your browser’s Bookmarks for quick access? Press Ctrl + D and a dialogue box will open asking how you want to save it.

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

Cooper, S. Corbett, K. Seligman, S. (2014). Clinical Reflection and Ritual as Forms of Participation and Interaction: Reply to Bass and Stern. Psychoanal. Dial., 24(6):684-690.
    

(2014). Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 24(6):684-690

Clinical Reflection and Ritual as Forms of Participation and Interaction: Reply to Bass and Stern

Steven H. Cooper, Ph.D., Ken Corbett, Ph.D. and Stephen Seligman, DMH

We agree with the commentaries that Relational psychoanalysis has stood firmly against dichotomizing clinical reflection, on one hand, and interactional processes, on the other. Still, we wonder whether the relational literature has skewed toward interaction at the expense of concentrated attention to patients’ internal worlds. Predispositions toward interaction may diminish reflective space and quiet inwardness, which are themselves forms of analytic relating. We raise the possibility that the Relational model’s inclusive breadth, valuable as it is, might sometimes impede and even devalue discussions of specific technical matters. We consider clinical conceptualizations of ritual, “relating,” and “being in contact.”

[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 © 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.