Reply to Commentaries

Abstract

Dr. Brown reasserts his perspective that the essence of intersubjective processes is unconscious in nature and has its provenance in Freud's (1912) description of unconscious communication between analyst and analysand. The author views this unconscious communication as made possible by the collaborating alpha functions of therapist and patient that is a constant “companion” to what is occurring on a conscious level. There is substantial agreement between the author's understanding of intersubjective processes and the work of Merleau-Ponty, which is discussed by Dr. Reis. Points of convergence and divergence between Brown's and Reis's conclusions are further discussed, particularly with regard to the fate of the transformation of somatically based experience. Dr. First's comments focused extensively on the work of the Barangers (2008) about the “analytic field,” and Brown compares his reading of that classic paper with that of Dr. First. Additionally, the notion of the “analytic field,” dealt with by Reis, First, and Brown, is examined in detail. Finally, the author responds to First's comments about the clinical vignette.

Notes

¹ Bion and Rickman (1943) published a paper in Lancet, “Intra-group tensions in therapy,” that applied field theory to group phenomena.