Going Similar Places by Different Routes: A Review of Screen Relations: The Limits of Computer-Mediated Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy by Gillian Isaacs Russells

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

¹ This is not an argument for relativism or anything goes. As has been discussed by countless authors both within psychoanalysis (i.e., Hoffmann, 1991; Stern, 2003) and without (i.e., Valsiner, 2007), subjectivity is not without constraint and limit. Indeed, these boundaries enable experiencing in the first place.

² From a meditational perspective, all activity is semiotic or sign based, and thus even implicit processes are semiotic. Moreover, larger cultural sign systems provide the necessary context for making meaning of ideas like attachment.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Philip J. Rosenbaum

Philip J. Rosenbaum, PhD, is a clinical psychologist, psychoanalyst, and the Director of Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) at Haverford College. He received his psychoanalytic training at the William Alanson White Institute. His interests are in studying the commonalities between contemporary interpersonal analytic practice and cultural psychology, particularly as it is connected to understanding meaning-making processes as they occur in and are constituted by social and interpersonal situations. He is the editor of the recently published book Making Our Ideas Clear: Pragmatism and Psychoanalysis.