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.
How shall we align our theories and techniques of psychoanalysis with contemporary understandings of our inevitable participation in the reproduction of social and economic relations that privilege the dominant? This challenge has hovered about, stimulating and troubling our profession from its inception. Yet, in spite of the commitments of many, we remain without a method that incorporates an appreciation of the ubiquitous nature of the dynamics of privilege and prejudice with our understandings, via explorations of the transference and countertransfrence, of how our patients' dilemmas are unconsciously anchored in their own unique histories and systems of meaning. The emergence of two-person perspectives on the psychoanalytic process, with their emphasis on analysts' participation in the creation of process and meaning, offers new possibilities for engaging these issues. Few psychoanalytic authors, however, have specifically addressed the influence of cultural affiliations and identities on the analyst's subjectivity, clinical process, and technique (see Leary, 1997, for a notable exception).
It is in this context that Layton and Bertone attempt to impress upon us that thinking about analysts' subjectivity must extend beyond the personal and interpersonal dynamics of the moment and give expression to an awareness of our place in the hierarchies of gender, sexuality, race, and class that inform all subjectivity; to do otherwise is to become complicit in replicating oppressive social forms. To my mind, this is an enlightened agenda—one to which an intersubjectively oriented psychoanalysis is uniquely suited and to which we can best contribute by supporting collegial communication of our efforts with patients.