Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To see papers related to the one you are viewing…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

When there are articles or videos related to the one you are viewing, you will see a related papers icon next to the title, like this: RelatedPapers32Final3For example:


Click on it and you will see a bibliographic list of papers that are related (including the current one). Related papers may be papers which are commentaries, responses to commentaries, erratum, and videos discussing the paper. Since they are not part of the original source material, they are added by PEP editorial staff, and may not be marked as such in every possible case.


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

Ullman, C. (2011). Response to Commentaries. Psychoanal. Perspect., 8(2):230-237.

(2011). Psychoanalytic Perspectives, 8(2):230-237

Response to Commentaries Related Papers

Chana Ullman, Ph.D.

It is a pleasure and a challenge to respond to the three discussions of my paper. It is a pleasure because the ideas expressed in the discussions offer important elaborations of my arguments, helping me to better understand and articulate my own position. It is, however, also a great challenge to respond to the three discussions, which are obviously divided, without reproducing the split between the “good guys,” who share my position, and the “bad guys,” who do not. Inevitably, it is precisely this dilemma (or at least an important version of this dilemma) that my paper addresses and that we constantly face as psychoanalysts working in the political and cultural context that I describe. I will first comment on Neil Altman's and Jessica Benjamin's contributions to the arguments I present, and then try to find a “third” position from which to reflect on Govrin's rebuttal of my paper.

The works of Altman and Benjamin have been an inspiration to my work and have greatly influenced my own thinking, including the thinking presented here. It is therefore not surprising that I find little to disagree with and much to appreciate in their discussions.

Neil Altman continues in the path that he himself has opened in contemporary psychoanalysis, reflecting psychoanalytically on the world inside and outside the consulting room and enabling a psychoanalytic position that is mindful of the inextricable ties among history, politics, and character, and the ways they enter transference and countertransference. I will respond here to two of the important claims he makes. The first is the costs of dehumanization as a currency paid by those who oppress others; the other is the way he suggests we face the dilemma of taking a public stance as psychoanalysts.

Altman reminds us that psychoanalysis is often the treatment of privileged sectors of society who live insulated from the realities of suffering.

[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 © 2019, 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.