Theory's Shadow: Response to John A. Lindon*

I am sorry that John Lindon found nothing of value in my discussion (Goldner, 1994) of his paper, “Gratification and Provision in Psychoanalysis” (Lindon, 1994). While he seems to view my choice to appreciate his work as well as to critique it as some kind of a ploy, I actually find the issues raised by his paper, and his response to my discussion of it, significant enough to warrant another foray into print.

Since our dialogue has been plagued by the mutual experience of being (willfully?) misunderstood, it raises important questions about whether, and how, discussions are to be conducted across the diverse views that characterize contemporary psychoanalytic discourse. Dialogue is, of course, the founding premise of this journal, and it is unfortunate that the conversation in question provides such a clear illustration of the “intradisciplinary communication problems” that Mitchell (1991, p. 3) articulates in the founding issue of Psychoanalytic Dialogues.

In a carefully worded observation that is a model of editorial understatement, Mitchell writes that

when psychoanalysts of different persuasions attempt to talk to each other about matters of common concern … the results are often far from satisfying…. [This is because] analysts cluster in groups identified with a particular tradition, each with its own favorite words and phrases…. [which] carry with [them] many assumptions with which [those outside that tradition] may not agree [pp. 1-2].