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.
I would like to thank Dr. Mi Kyum Kim for her thoughtful comments regarding my paper “Bridging the Gap.” She has captured some of the tension that operates both theoretically and technically as we conduct analytic treatment with patients from diverse cultures. What has been most illuminating to me in discussing my ideas with colleagues has been the dichotomous nature of their responses: Some have more or less expressed the opinion that analysis of unconscious conflict should remain the top priority, independent of the cultural foundation on which that conflict is layered; others have espoused the idea that cultural difference between analyst and analysand should be emphasized, both for its own heuristic value, and as a springboard for further inquiry into the particulars of the patient's psyche. To be more specific, some have told me that I did not go far enough in exploring with C the impact of the Asian-American matrix on the analytic process, while others have wondered why I am so concerned about his cultural background. Interestingly, this dichotomy is reminiscent of other contemporary intellectual and political debate waged between analysts of “opposing” theoretical schools (Richards, 1999).
Yet, it strikes me that the aim, as played out between “contemporary Freudians” and “relationists,” is not to discover the absolute truth, but to arrive at the optimal tincture of the models at our disposal. How can we construct the best approach to understanding another human being who might not speak our language primarily, and who may have grown up with very different cultural assumptions