Commentary on Discussion by Stolorow and Aron

I want to begin with one comment on each of these discussions individually before I look at them more closely to compare them with one another. First, Lewis Aron makes a strong case for the overwhelming presence of sadomasochism in Joye Weisel-Barth's case material. He notes that, with a report so dominated by sadomasochism, his first thought as a clinician is to wonder where and how this will emerge in the relationship and then demurs that it is not because he expects it to come up in the transference, in the old-fashioned sense, but rather, that what is talked about in analysis is simultaneously played out between patient and analyst. I want to emphasize something I am sure Aron will agree with: when we, as analysts, wonder where and how, not whether, any particular material will emerge in the transference, then we will surely see it emerge. It is by now commonplace that what we expect to find, we will find. Aron, then, expects to find sadomasochism as a dominant theme in the transference relationship, but neither Weisel-Barth, nor Stolorow for that matter, were impressed or overwhelmed with its presence; at least, neither mentioned it. Perspective determines vision.

Turning now to Stolorow's discussion, I can't disappoint him by choosing to ignore his irritating gadfly role, that is, the challenge he mounts to the erroneous philosophical assumptions he finds of fractured human subjectivity in Weisel-Barth's patient, J, who reports nightmares without reporting the presence of painful affect. I know