Author's Response

In general, I find the discussions of value because they cover a wide spectrum from a purely clinical contribution where case material is presented in what, I assume, is a corroborative spirit (Dr. Liberman) to what might be considered a microscopic metapsychological discussion and critique (Dr. Lichtenstein). In between these polarities are questions of formulation and technique (Mrs. Sandford) and clinical theoretical questions as well as more abstract theory (Dr. Hayman and Dr. Segal).

Without feeling that I am using standard clichés in thanking discussants, I can unequivocally state that I found considerable value and relevance in every discussion. Even when I did not agree with the discussant's viewpoint, I found that my thinking gained considerable clarification as I formulated my reply. In some instances, I came to the conclusion that the discussant created a straw man or presented a pseudo problem, but in a very subtle fashion which demanded a sharpening of the theoretical focus or greater clarity of expression on my part (the former and the latter are intimately related).

I shall begin by commenting upon Dr. Hayman's remarks. She did not limit herself, as she stated, to one area, but took up two questions and made some very perceptive points.

The first point is really directed to a discussion of fixation and regression. Dr. Hayman reminds us that one cannot consider such differences on an absolute basis. An object relation, no matter how primitive, has to be introduced, i.e., Winnicott's “subjective object.” She presents this “subjective object” as another variable that has to be accounted for when distinguishing current regressed states from neonatal developmental stages. Insofar as the current subjective object—the analyst—is different from the original one, the regressed ego state is fundamentally different from an approximately

corresponding neonatal phase. True, but in a sense, these inherent differences exist when one compares any two sets of circumst