Reply to Anderson

I will not address all of the specifics in Anderson's critique but will limit my responses to what I view as our major areas of difference. My definition of generosity focuses not primarily on the behavior of ‘giving’ but on its associated motivational mental representations. Anderson views my assertion that analytical ‘generosity is a constructive interaction between analyst and analysand, rather than a defensive enactment’ as ‘quite interesting’. However, his subsequent critique is uniformly critical. Having worked in an academic setting all of my professional life I am not a stranger to criticism nor am I immune to it, however I contend that Anderson would have contributed more effectively to the spirit dialogue by offering more balanced and constructive criticism. For example, he might have attempted to construct a clearer definition of generosity, if he truly believes that one is required.

Like other affectively valenced terms, e.g., ‘love’ or ‘hate’, the affective states associated with ‘generosity’ cannot be accurately conveyed solely via the language of the thinking function. Whereas subjectivity, as William James noted, can be a ‘most dangerous method’, no integral description of mental events can exclude it. Anderson is correct in concluding that I follow Jung in this regard.

In my criticism of Bion's suggestion that the analyst ‘suspend memory and desire’, I am arguing that a biased motivational stance by the analyst is always operative. In practice, this is not trivial, as many sophisticated depth psychologists tend to avoid appearing as though they have an agenda for the treatment. This topic is well addressed in the monograph by Sandler and Dreher (1996), and further discussed and referenced in my paper. Anderson's point that Bion's suggestion may compensate for an overly directed stance is well taken, and one that I agree with. However, instead of confining his remarks to the substance of the issue, Anderson suggests I am being ‘contemp