Relational polemics

Dear Editor,

Eyal Rozmarin's (2019) recent review of my book on a critique of contemporary psychoanalysis is a polemical dismissal based on a biased political agenda. The review does not adequately capture the scope and depth of the work, is not a true rendition of what I actually wrote, is laced with rhetoric and sophistry, and is intellectually dishonest. First of all, the book is titled Conundrums (Mills 2012), not Relational Conundrums. Was this a slip? Is this a projection of Rozmarian's own ambivalence, or an indication that the relational school does indeed present its own theoretical challenges? Secondly, Rozmarin does not identify himself to the reader as an Associate Editor of Psychoanalytic Dialogues, arguably the leading relational journal in the world, who also trained in the New York University Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy & Psychoanalysis, the leading relational training centre in the United States, and has been a long-time collaborator with Adriene Harris, Muriel Dimen, and other noted relational authors who he charges me of mischaracterizing. I find these omissions a palpable conflict of interest given that his allegiances are not disclosed to the reader whom he is intent on deceiving by attempting to camouflage his political identifications.

After a gracious introduction, my detailed critique is reduced rather abruptly to a crass denial of the validity of my arguments as being “uncritical,” “simplistic,” and “distorted” (p. 166). The tone of the review is based on attributing conclusions to my arguments that I do not actually make, pulling quotes out of context, and misrepresenting the critique I have to offer as a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the subject matter I analyze (p. 167). One is left to wonder how such a book could have possibly passed a blind peer-review process and been published, let alone win a Goethe Award for best book, receive wide scholarly attention, and form the basis of an international conference held in Israe