psrigyan p&c w10 annotation 3

So what is intersubjectivity and how is it related to domination and recognition? And, what are those terms?“There is something more than internal object relations—and this is important in relation to some of Butler’s criticisms as well. If we take the tension between recognition and omnipotence to be the inner conflict that shapes the interpersonal world, then I think we are taking the intersubjective to be an axis that cuts across intrapsychic and interpersonal.” (Benjamin, 2000, p. 297)“The necessity of struggling to survive destruction, overcome omnipotence, and reestablish recognition after breakdown is ongoing and essentially defining of recognition” (Benjamin, 2000, p. 298)“As I think might be evident to clinicians, I am trying to show why “empathy is not enough,” how, even with a steady provision of recognition, the traumatic, destructive experiences have to present themselves in full force in the microcosm of therapy. If such full-force destructiveness is met, then recognition is not an idealized, protected experience but one sturdy enough to face trauma. Reading “survival becomes possible” as equivalent to “destruction is overcome once and for all” might be a manifestation of how the critical theory perspective diverges from the clinical” (Benjamin, 2000, p. 298) Thirdness & gender“..acceptance of the parents’ (of whatever sex) independent relation means that the child, instead of being located in two discrete dyads, can move from being observed by a third in the relation with the other to acting as a third, observing the other’s relation to a second other. This notion of the third can be detached from any given gender or sexual constellation.” (Benjamin, 2000, p. 306)“As Aron and I (Aron and Benjamin, 1999) have articulated the oedipal development of thirdness, this higher level of recognition is necessarily based on the earlier development of the nascent third in the preoedipal dyad. As I said, this dyadic third is what enables the parental third, real or symbolic, to constitute an occasion for intersubjective observation (e.g., observing two important others relating independent of me) rather than merely a persecutory threat (e.g., a danger to the maternal tie, or a terrifying, excluding otherness)” (Benjamin, 2000, p. 306)“While the observing function has classically been associated with the paternal third, it becomes schizoid, split from the experiencing self, if it is not grounded in an earlier maternal or dyadic form of thirdness. Only this prior and continuing dyadic form of thirdness allows the evolution of such symbolic functions. Thus we see the relation between dyadic and triadic structures” (Benjamin, 2000, p. 306)“I believe that this idea of the third also has value in thinking about gender. Reaching the dyadic place of thirdness, in which symbolic relations are possible, is a prerequisite for transcending rigid gender binaries in triadic relations. Moving from the defensive use of repudiation to tolerance of overinclusiveness allows the postoedipal use of symbols to bridge multiple and contradictory identifications (Bassin, 1998) in configuations of desire. Dyadic experiences of subject–subject relatedness form another level alongside the split binary relations of subject–object, active–passive, doer–done to that characterized traditional gender relations” (Benjamin, 2000, p. 306)