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.
In his reply to my paper “Agency, Ontology, and Analysis: Roy Schafer's Hermeneutic Conflict,” Schafer suggests that I might be misapplying an egalitarian sentiment of the sort that is often “overplayed by proselytizing interpersonalists.” If I am it is most certainly by accident for I hold dear to me the few specialized skills that I have and I am always content to relinquish control to those whose specialized skills better suit the task at hand. For instance, I never once felt “benighted” when my mechanic authoritatively delivered his diagnosis of the clanking sound under my hood. Then again, my mechanic never once said that his was only one interpretation, and that he really had no objective criteria for choosing between replacing my carburetor and changing my spark plugs.
No, my interest in the relationship between analyst and analysand in Schafer's work does not stem from egalitarian concerns. It seems from epistemological and ontological concerns which Schafer's careful reply forced me to rethink and clarify. In my original paper I suggested that Schafer's work revealed a hermeneutic conflict, that while he seemed to align himself