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.
It pleases me that both discussants (this issue) saw fit to utilize the metaphor of the bicycle wheel and also that it proved elastic enough to be used in such divergent ways. Even if the spokes are not specifiable, or the size or style of wheel, I offer the metaphor as a skeletal structure that individuals might uniquely flesh out. The responses by Sue Shapiro and Karol Marshall are quite different, adding to Shapiro's point that just as therapeutic and supervisory dyads are each unique, so are discussants' responses. Perhaps the bicycle wheel can be invoked here too: there are multiple meanings or potentials associated with experience; some will resonate, develop, and come to the fore whereas others remain nascent or backgrounded. Life experience and clinical experience broaden the range of perception and growth in an ongoing way—more spokes in the wheel, to remain in metaphor. If there is one aspect of the bicycle wheel I like most, it is its capacity to hold multiple spokes, as in multiple (infinite?) modes of relating. Tightening or loosening one affects the others, each contributing to the overall balance (or imbalance, depending).
There are three issues I want to revisit in Sue Shapiro's (this issue) discussion. One where I believe we wholeheartedly agree (re: clinical realism), a second where I believe we can be brought to a commonality (re: universalism), and a third where I respectfully disagree (re: linguistic usage of gendered theorizing). These three issues are all relevant to the case of Michael and have ultimately led Shapiro and me to different conclusions on how to treat him. Here, I most pointedly disagree with Shapiro's analysis and discuss these issues as they relate to my treatment of Michael as well.
With regard to the first issue of clinical realism, Shapiro's (this issue) discussion involves a detailed exploration of Michael from another article (Celenza, 2006) and a presentation (Celenza, 2008), thereby allowing more material than readers of t