Interpreting Mitchell's Constructivism: Reply to Altman and Davies

We will respond to Altman and Davies's specific criticisms of the arguments in our paper (Eagle, Wolitzky, and Wakefield 2001), in which we analyzed and critiqued some of the philosophical assumptions underlying Stephen Mitchell's and Owen Renik's constructivist accounts of psychoanalytic interpretation. First, however, we must comment on an issue far more important than the validity of this or that specific argument or theoretical point. Twice in their paper, Altman and Davies imply that our paper so obviously and egregiously distorts Mitchell's ideas that, as editor, Arnold Richards should have refused to publish it. They ask him “whether he believes that the articles which he has chosen to publish [particularly ours and another by Jay Greenberg] conform to his own standards for discourse” as outlined in his article in this issue (emphasis added). Later, more explicitly, they write, “Richards's willingness to publish this article, which so distorts the essence of Mitchell's argument, seems to us at sharp variance with the plea for respectful dialogue he presents …” (emphasis added). Altman and Davies make this chilling suggestion despite the fact that, as they must know, the paper was peer reviewed and recommended for publication. It would be amusing, if it weren't so serious, that in a paper titled “A Plea for Constructive Dialogue” it is suggested that an editor should