Concerning Respect

In his Editorial in International Forum of Psychoanalysis, vol 6, No 3, 1997, Jan Stensson, with the sad background of Nina Coltart's recent death, invites the readers to dialogue and encourages discussion of the contributions to IFP. While reading this Editorial I decided, as a response, to formulate my differences with some of the conclusions in that very same Editorial. The Editorial launches criticism of Kleinian theory, calling into question some of its basic tenets. This could be a point of departure for a stimulating exchange of opinions, were it not for the dubious and problematic form of his argument. To this latter aspect I will return at the end of my discussion.

I have for some years been fascinated by the complexity and depth of the Kleinian tradition. In short the theory seems to have intellectual as well as emotional potential. Although I am aware that other psychoanalytic traditions have given valuable contributions to psychoanalytic theory and practice, this particular strand of thought has captured my interest as no other. One reason could be that I, through years of supervision with Kleinian analysts, have had the privilege to experience how my analytical work has gained momentum due to the emphasis in this particular tradition on the strong link between theory and clinical practice. In what follows my aim is not to present an official Kleinian standpoint, nor am I pretending to be a Kleinian. I have not had Kleinian analysis and simply regard myself as influenced by the Kleinian tradition.

I think it is possible to begin almost anywhere in good psychoanalytical theory and still be able to reach into its essence. So I simply commence my reflections about the pertinent issues. The tension between internal reality and external reality has always been a problematic issue in psychoanalysis. The Kleinian position, if there is just one, is very complex. External reality is not just there waiting for the subject to perceive it. To a certain extent external