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.
In highlighting some of the congress's major panels Steven Ellman, chair of the Mexico City Programme Committee, pointed out that by looking at psychoanalytic core concepts the possibilities of conceptual integration should be explored in the service of increasing clinical effectiveness — an ambitious aim, which, by choosing such overall psychoanalytic topics as the unconscious, dream and sexuality, was doomed to fail. (And whether conceptual integration is a promising path to help clinical practice at the present stage would be another discussion.) Thus I see my task as the reporter on the third and last of the major panels, namely that on sexuality with Björn Salomonsson, Nancy Kulish and Luis Kancyper as contributors, in describing the way it failed, in my view, to capture its very nature, the unplumbed depths [Abgründe]; disquieting, distressing and unsettling as well as exciting experiences we meet and met in consulting room from the early days, which can result on the one hand in boundary violations and various enactments possibly hindering an analytic process altogether, and on the other — when dealt with properly by working through — in enabling a more integrated way of living.
When reading the prepublished responses of the three panellists (Salomonsson, 2011), I found myself left with a shattered impression despite the fact that many important and relevant points were named: