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.
We plan to publish a selection of the contributions made to the Internet Discussion Forum so that readers who are not on the Internet can have some access to the discussion. We welcome responses (not more than 500 words). Full instructions are posted on the Internet discussion site. The address is:
Kradin's assertion that generosity is a constructive interaction between analyst and analysand, rather than defensive enactment, is quite interesting.
By defining generosity as ‘a privately felt and shared experience’, he alludes to an event or moment when both benefactor and beneficiary are not only enriched, but grateful (Kradin 1999a, p. 224). Kradin (1999a) insists such generosity: (1) ‘represents a cardinal therapeutic factor, capable of ameliorating the pathogenic effects of harsh introjects and their archetypal cores’ (p. 231); (2) is the essential motivating feature of the therapeutic attitude (p. 232); and (3) ‘that the question analysts must ask themselves is not whether we “love” our patients, but whether we have the capacity to be generous towards them (ibid.)’.
Responding to these assertions, Casement (1999) states:
‘The expansive breadth of the paper may suit its theme but the paper's allusive style leaves it unclear as to what links the author is making to the other works that are cited.’
Concluding he had not ‘somehow failed to clearly convey what [he] meant by generosity’, Kradin chooses not to ‘accommodate' Casement with ‘a clearer definition’ (Kradin 1999b, p. 245). Instead he informs that ‘desire’ and