Reply to Ann Casement

I was frankly surprised after reading Ann Casement's review of my paper on generosity, as it seems to have opened Pandora's box! After the first wave of defensiveness passed, it was my impression that I had somehow failed to clearly convey what I meant by generosity. However, after some consideration, I concluded that if generosity is, as I suggest, a complex of cognitions and affects, then there might be no way to define it adequately, and that one must amplify its meaning in contexts. Whereas that was certainly my intention, some may feel that I did not succeed. Understandably, Casement appears to desire a clearer definition, and I fear that I may not be able to accommodate her. As we all have used the term generosity in different contexts before, memory may also contribute to her difficulty in fully appreciating what I am intending by the term. With that as preamble, I will attempt to specifically address her issues with the paper.

Its goal was to investigate the therapeutic motivations that guide the analyst in the work. It is my belief that Bion's often quoted dictum ‘to suspend memory and desire’ is a marvellous piece of hyperbolic advice that can guide the analyst towards attempting to remain psychologically open to whatever happens to emerge in treatment. Nevertheless, if taken literally, it more accurately reflects the goal of an Eastern meditative practice. In this work, we do listen selectively; we do choose what, when and how to interpret; and hopefully, without impinging upon the patient's psyche, we all have certain desires for the patient's overall well-being. Our work takes place in contexts, and contexts depend on both memory and desire. Generosity requires both memory and desire, it is not non-grasping mind. In the absence of ‘memory or desire’, I would argue that rather than being ‘unrealistically generous’ as Casement proposes, if carried out as suggested there would be no generosity.

Now, the fact that I do not agree with Bion in this certainly do