Response to comments made by Stavroula Berati and Vasilis Dimopoulos

I would like to thank Stavroula Berati (SB) and Vasilis Dimopoulos (VD) for their participation in this analytical dialogue on the clinical psychoanalytic material I proposed, a dialogue made possible through the introduction of a special section in the Oedipus psychoanalytic journal -“The Analyst in the Session”- which is of great interest to the psychoanalytic community. I believe this dialogue is valuable to all: not only those who contribute through writing but also those who read it, offering the prospect of insight into, and development of, the psychoanalytic work, through cross-referencing and communication of various theoretical schemata or clinical approaches, and also through various more personal psychoanalytic viewpoints.

By way of introduction, and as far as the aspect of technique is concerned, I have to say that I am of the same opinion as SB in identifying what she describes as a difficulty in the written presentation of clinical material, which is in no way autonomous, nor separate (given a short, written text may allow such a false impression) from what took place before, in the interpretative work and the progression of the transference-countertransference relationship. It is also very difficult to convey the feelings that prevail at any one point during the session, the fantasies and the associations of the analyst, and the sense that the latter has of the potential effectiveness of an interpretation - all in relation to the level of psychic function or the interweaving of levels of psychic function (for example, early oral, narcissistic or oedipal) activated in said given circumstance.

The latter perspective may allow us a dynamic view of the levels of psychic function, fixations and defenses that characterize a patient. It follows that,