Response to Discussants

I am deeply grateful to Steven Stern for his remarkable and brilliant discussion of my paper in which he provides a theoretical scaffolding for my work with Drum, a scaffolding largely missing in my narrative in part because I found that trying to interact with him as much as I could without (theoretical) memory or desire (Bion, 2018) seemed to help us connect, in part because after Drum died I wanted to tell his story, probably, as I think of it now, as a way to deal with my grief rather than to generate a scholarly paper. Indeed, it was only by a series of accidents that it became known to our conference leaders, who then selected it to be the keynote address.

When I treated Drum I thought of myself as a dyed in the wool self-psychologist, but the preeminent necessity of engaging him became the mother of my self-invention as one doing what Stern describes as “a self-psychological form of relational treatment,” the aim of which was to forge what he calls a needed relationship (Stern, 2017) with Drum.

Stern’s idea of the co-creation in treatment of a potential space between patient and therapist in which they find ways to be uniquely present to one another in speech, thought and the process seems perfect to characterize the evolution of my relation with Drum. Stern also understands and powerfully articulates the way the frame of our relation was both protective for Drum and empowering, very much the reason we both believed he would be safe during the trip and in its aftermath.

Especially useful to me is Stern’s discussion of forward edge transferences (Tolpin, 2002). What worked for me with Drum was to try to respond to moments when he seemed to come to life. This occurred first—or I first noticed it—when he wanted me to see pictures of his teddy bears. He was proud of them, and there was something about this pride and his confidence that I would respond warmly that suggested a process was in play between us (if till then under my radar) that might lead to something, i