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.
There of the four discussants have to varying degrees misunderstood our position on presymbolic representations as implying “permanent” (Tabin, Kulka), “entrenched” (Harris), “crystallized” (Kulka) structures, with linear implications for adult development (Harris). We focus first on this issue, and then turn briefly to several of the individual responses of the discussants.
Overall, Kulka has understood extremely well the systems model or inherent field theory underlying the paper: “a system defined by the constant interactive process which exists between its components …” We heartily agree that formulating “interactiveness” as a psychoanalytic concept, a “system whose processes are its essence,” is critical to psychoanalysis. Ironically, Kulka has misunderstood us as well, in characterizing our core idea as “an a priori existence of a permanent interactive system”. The interactive system is not a priori, but emerges as a function of the dyad; it is not “permanent,” but rather is in constant process and potential reorganization.
Harris's description of our argument, that “early pattern becomes long-term, entrenched procedural memory for interaction … reproduced in adult dyadic life” places procedural memories into a linear model. Instead, we have espoused a much more transformational view, suggesting that only in pathology is there a loss of this transformational process.
This is what we said in the paper: