Response to Jay Greenberg's letter

Jay Greenberg opens his letter with the claim that my characterization of him as “a leading figure in American Relational psychoanalysis” (Blass, 2018, 950) is factually inaccurate. I find this strange since his central role in the development of that field is universally acknowledged, including by Greenberg himself, most recently in an interview published in a book of essays by “eminent relational thinkers” (Aron, Grand & Slochower, 2018, 3). Greenberg is also well aware that many analysts maintain, to this day, that he “represents the relational point of view” (Greenberg & Aron, 2018, 35) and regard him as “a relationalist” (ibid., 47) or “an exponent of relational psychoanalysis” (Scarfone, 2010, 984). However, as emphasized in Greenberg's letter, there are analysts (himself included) who do not identify him as relational. Since in my single-line presentation of the authors in this section I aimed to mention only brief and basic facts in consensus, I commented on Greenberg being a leading figure in the relational field and not on whether he currently is (or is not) a relational psychoanalyst.

Greenberg goes on to assume that mischaracterization of him as a relational analyst “certainly” shaped my reading of what he wrote and led me, through intellectually dishonest means and because of my limitations (as expressed in what he believes is my use of an overvalued idea), to misportray his position and then overgeneralize it. However, no evidence at all is adduced for these disparaging claims (not only regarding what I stated but regarding my underlying considerations and “tendentious purpose”). Thus, I can only say that I think that they are untrue, that I know that they rely on certain assumed facts that are simply mistaken (e.g. as to my preconception regarding Greenberg's current relational affiliation) and that it is wrong to publicize such unfounded allegations. To recall, Greenberg's invited commentary appeared in full following my introduction, so at least the