Jumping the Gun

Dear Jacques: When you told us that you had written a response to our article “,” we were eager to read it in order to join you in a debate on the hypotheses that our article modestly proposed. We were, however, quite taken aback when we read your reply, which revealed itself as not so much an invitation to debate a hypothetical theoretical model, but as a harsh critique that not only puts into question our credibility as thinkers, but more importantly passes judgment on our legitimacy as analysts.

Despite our shock in face of such serious accusations, we must admit that your argumentation is elegant and that the unfolding arguments you present would appear convincing if it weren't for the fact that the premise you base your argumentation upon is erroneous. Indeed, the logic of your argumentation rests on the assumption that since the article was submitted 2 weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks, this “implies that the elaboration and writing of this text took place during the same days as the sessions that served as ‘clinical vignettes.’” However, this assumption is false.

Of course, one cannot expect others to know about all aspects of their colleague's work, and no one can be blamed for ignoring that this paper was not written during the two weeks that followed 9/11. But since we are only a stone's throw away from one another and even have seen each other regularly since the publication of this article, why didn't you just ask us before publicly condemning us? You would have learned that we have been working on these themes for many years, that our first article on terrorism was published 10 years ago, that in the 6 years prior to the September terrorist attacks, one or both of us published no less than five papers on these issues, all using a psychodynamic perspective, and that we have just published a book solely on the psychoanalytic understanding of criminal frames of mind.