A Response That Raises Many Questions

Let me begin by thanking the authors who have gifted me so much of their time in delving in depth into my ideas, thereby enabling me too to understand and express the gist of these notions better. I attempt to address each point in order, even though certain themes recur from different perspectives.

Gail Reed offers a profound, and to my mind very precise, account of the various aspects of my thought. I greatly appreciated the connection she makes between me and André Green, especially as this connection is not easy to make. From a European standpoint, the differences between Green and myself seem much greater than they actually are, given that his conceptualization is based on the drives, and my own model is strongly relational (whatever that may mean in the present post-Bion, post-field environment). However, having several times had the welcome opportunity to compare notes on clinical material with Green, I always found that our conceptions were, in many respects, compatible and similar; in other words, notwithstanding our differing theoretical models, technique, and theory of technique, my clinical thought was not so far apart from his. I am grateful to Gail Reed for also having identified possible points of agreement on the theoretical level, in particular concerning anxieties of intrusion and abandonment even within every individual session.

Let me now add some reflections of my own on the points raised by Gail. Although it is true that my model and technique arose from work with severe pathologies (borderline and psychotic patients, as well as children), it is my belief that my technical approach can be extrapolated also to neurotic patients, at least if we wish to reach and explore the deepest level of their minds, where we discover lumps of severe pathology (which may be psychotic, borderline, or autistic). With all patients, I consider that the purpose of analysis is to work not so much on insight, the overcoming of splits, repression, or historical reconstr