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 AM DELIGHTED THAT THE MATTER OF “TOUCH” is at last being properly debated in this issue of Psychoanalytic Inquiry and that my paper “Some Pressures on the Analyst for Physical Contact….” has been used as a take-off point for this discussion.
One thing that strikes me immediately is how interesting it is to find that an analyst in a paper, as with an analyst in a consulting room, can be used to represent positions that are allocated to him by those wishing to engage with particular positions. I am happy for this to be so, even though it means tolerating a fair degree of being misrepresented in the process, and I am therefore especially grateful for having this opportunity now to respond to that use of my paper.
Also, as with any analyzing that takes place in the absence of the patient (known as “wild analysis”), we can see how it can easily happen that assumptions begin to be made about an absent analyst/author, which, going unchecked, can lead to constructions that may end up rather wide of the mark. But, in this case, it does not matter, for two reasons: first, that I am fortunately in a position to respond (which is often not the case when debate takes place unknown to the person concerned) and, second, because this “use” of me as the analyst of Mrs. B may be providing important opportunities for debate with the positions represented. But, what may surprise some of the