You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
I read Steven and Carolyn Ellman's papers with great interest. Rich and thought-provoking, they both raise many fascinating questions. I will concentrate my associations and remarks on Carolyn Ellman's paper. However, the clinical example that I will refer to in my discussion of her paper was actually triggered by something Steven Ellman said in his paper:
I assume that most (probably all) infants have moments of falling to bits, and that the need to scan the environment is provided in the aftermath of these experiences. However, only the traumatized infant frequently scans the environment, and this infant will develop pernicious or malignant envy that will fuel paranoia or a more severe psychotic state.
This combination of the two papers opened a new perspective and allowed me to think about a paranoiac patient of my own through a different looking glass. This new “construction” is certainly not entirely different from my previous one, but new stones are added. The metaphor corresponds, in my mind, with Carolyn Ellman's dynamic way of elaborating the construction of her theory of envy. In that sense her paper is truly generative.
Though I come from a different theoretical background, I am interested, Dr. Ellman, by the concordance of our thoughts on the clinical problem of trauma. The word trauma appears only towards the end of your paper; yet for me, you suggested a stimulating perspective on trauma, a construction of your own, through your explorations of envy. You ask, Where does