Skip to main content
Log in

Gender talk: Discussion of muriel dimen’s ‘third step’

  • Published:
The American Journal of Psychoanalysis Aims and scope

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Bollas, C. (1987).The Shadow of the Object: Psychoanalysis of the Unthought Known. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromberg P. M. (1993). Shadow and substance: A relational perspective on clinical process.Psychoanalytic Psychology 10(2):147–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1990).Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimen, M. (1991). Deconstructing difference: Gender, splitting, and transitional space.Psychoanalytic Dialogues 1(3):335–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimen, M. (1995). On “our nature”: Prolegomenon to a relational theory of sexuality. In T. Domenici and R. Lesser (eds.),Disorienting Sexualities. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimen, M. (this issue). The third step: Freud, the feminists and postmodernism.The American Journal of Psychoanalysis.

  • Flax, J. (1990).Thinking Fragments: Psychoanalysis, Feminism and Postmodernism in the Contemporary West. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N., and Nicholson, L. J. (1990). Social criticism without philosophy: An encounter between feminism and postmodernism. In L. J. Nicholson (ed.),Feminism/Postmodernism.

  • Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality.Standard Edition 7:125–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. InThe Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldner, V. (1991). Toward a critical relational theory of gender.Psychoanalytic Dialogues 1(3):249–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. (1991). Gender as contradiction.Psychoanalytic Dialogues 1(2):197–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horney, K. (1967).Feminine Psychology, H. R. Kelman (ed.), New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, D. H. (1994). Poststructuralist interpretation of the psychoanalytic relationship.Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis 22(2):175–193.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, J. V., Kaplan, A. G., Miller, J. B., Stiver, I. P., and Surrey, J. L. (1991).Women’s Growth in Connection: Writings from the Stone Center. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaminsky, M. (1994). Discourse and self-formation: The concept of mentsh in modern Yiddish culture.American Journal of Psychoanalysis 54(4):293–316.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. B. (1976).Toward a New Psychology of Women. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, S. A. (1993).Hope and Dread in Psychoanalysis. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, M. (in press). Horney’s counter-discourses: Contemporary implications. In P. Marcus and A. Rosenberg (eds.),Psychoanalytic Versions of the Human Condition and Clinical Practice. New York: New York University Press.

  • Rivera, M. (1989). Linking the psychological and the social: Feminism, poststructuralism and multiple personality.Dissociation 2(1):24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoller, R. J. (1985).Presentations of Gender. New York, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Price, M. Gender talk: Discussion of muriel dimen’s ‘third step’. Am J Psychoanal 55, 321–330 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02741981

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02741981

Navigation