Reply to Our Respondents

Before we reply to our critics we offer our sincere thanks to Kurt Jacobson and David Morgan for publishing our piece in Free Associations in Britain, since we could never have hoped to get it published in an American psychoanalytic journal. Given the fraught nature of the controversies that are still roiling the waters in Division 39 and the American Psychoanalytic Association, few journal editors - and none that we knew, or knew of, anyway - would have had the courage to do so for fear of “blowback” from any number of their readers and contributors.

In different circumstances, it might be possible for a detached observer to read our essay and yet not accept our claim that the psychoanalytic world is polarized by the impact that international political struggles have on current approaches to treatment. The editors of Free Associations solicited six responses to our essay that should eliminate any remaining doubt on that score. They seem to have prioritized responses that are critical of our essay to initiate a lively debate. They have also given us this opportunity to respond.

To begin with, we were a bit surprised when Bob Hinshelwood concluded his brief commentary on our paper by noting that:

the question has arisen whether Free Associations should have given space to the oppositional opinions of Burston and Nelson. Perhaps not? It may be that a better policy would be to remain silent over bitterly blaming feuds. Would a silence be preferable to an open dialogue which clearly will not reach a resolution without delving into unconscious dynamics?

Unfortunately, it is not clear from context when the question whether Free Associations should publish our “oppositional opinions” actually arose, leaving us with the impression that, in Dr. Hinshelwood's opinion, at least, some things - notably, our opinions about the current crisis of psychoanalysis in the United States - are better left unsaid. And while it is true that there was bitterness and bla