Danger, Pleasure, Vulnerability, Shame: Reply to Commentaries

Abstract

Hartman's and Blechner's responses to my essay highlight some illuminating differences with my own theoretical and clinical inclinations. In particular, Hartman's postmodernism and Blechner's empiricism allow me to clarify my own thinking, in particular the centrality of my concern with vulnerability. Sedgwick's challenge to my clinical case says much of interest about shame. It also permits me to address misunderstandings that can take place between analysts and patients, as well as between psychoanalysts and academics.