{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018259935553168637, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.297297297297297, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Trust and the Analytic Dialogue: Reply to Schwartz Cooney and Newirth

In this response to discussions by Amy Schwartz Cooney and Joseph Newirth, I recognize that both authors, coming from different theoretical perspectives, call attention to the ways that issues of trust in the analytic dyad shine a light on difficulties in a relational approach that is seen as emphasizing self-disclosure and expressivity. While Schwartz Cooney notes the importance of a relational “critique from within,” Newirth, a contemporary Kleinian, offers a structural perspective that emphasizes unconscious processes. I address some of the points raised by Schwartz Cooney, clarifying my thoughts on trust as both a prerequisite for and an achievement of psychoanalysis. I view Newirth’s formulation of modern Oedipal rivalry as helpful in understanding the enactment with Julia, but I differ from him regarding how I would make use of it clinically.