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.
I have based my response on several central points put forward by my discussants. This has provided the opportunity to explore different frames of reference. I focus on the validity of some notions such as identity or belonging to a stable institution. Also I discuss the different viewpoints concerning how we construct our sense of belonging, proposing that in order to belong to a relationship, it is necessary to continually work at this relationship. I also state that representation is distinct from presentation and that each of them has a different logic. This is also true for identification and the relationship between two or more others. My view is that the concept of otherness and presentation cannot be included in the hypothesis of transference–countertransference. It needs another one name, Interference. As these are unfamiliar concepts, it is clear that sometimes they are likened to more established ones. Using Eyal Rozmarin's remarks about how a feeling of intimacy was created at a dinner party with friends, I challenged the validity of this concept of intimacy in the construction of relationships. I also emphasized the importance of tolerance of others as Irene Cairo suggested. I feel strongly that our work with patients is not difficult but rather challenging and stimulating.