Reply to Reviews by Cavell, Sorenson, and Smith

According to Reik (1964), freud allegedly once said that “he could defend himself when attacked but was entirely defenseless when praised” (p. 4). Even though I've quoted this line before (Bromberg, 1997), I hadn't realized, until now, how much harder it is to be defenseless when the usual ways you've learned to hide your defenselessness when the usual ways you've learned to hide your defenselessness are denied to you. Therefore, as I have no choice but to reveal all, I might as well just begin with my strongest reaction—gratitude to my three distinguished colleagues, Drs. Marcia Cavell, Randall Sorenson, and Henry Smith, for not only their generous praise and all-around goodwill, but for their equal generosity in sharing, always with an inspiring blend of warmth and candor, the points of divergence with their own thinking. So, before replying to the individual reviews, I want to thank them all, collectively, for their thoughtful treatment of my work and for having dedicated so much of their valuable time to these commentaries. I am especially honored that my writing was taken as the object of such careful reading by individuals who, in their own right, have made such notable contributions to the field and whose own work I have followed with admiration and respect.

Although space does not permit my being able to express to each of them, in turn, the fullness of reply that is merited, I want to at least acknowledge how valuable it has been to reconsider my work from their fresh and diverse perspectives. One thing I found particularly rewarding in the juxtaposition of the three essays is that, notwithstanding their commonality in certain areas, they provide distinctly different emphases in what each selects as its primary subject matter, ranging from an examination of the philosophical dilemma presented