Abstract
This discussion of a case report focuses on the ubiquity of polarized thinking in formulating therapeutic concepts. Binary thinking afflicts the two sides of the essentialist-social constructivist debate. Both views avoid the fact that we can never really know where biology stops and culture begins. The classical view of transference is another type of binary thinking that diminishes the ambiguity that arises if one considers both the analyst and patient's contributions. It is argued, instead, that transference is not something projected onto a blank screen, but rather something that occurs between a therapist and patient based on subjective factors unique to each of them.