ABSTRACT
In June 2007 the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association (JAPA) hosted an online colloquium on the topic of masculinity. One of the dynamics that emerged during the colloquium was a disagreement between some participants who called for the engagement of postmodern perspectives on the concepts of gender and gender identity, and others who expressed doubt or reluctance toward the idea and asked, instead, that the discussion be carried out using what they called “plain talk.” Plain talk was portrayed as the experience-near language of patients and analysts in the clinical situation; plain talk, as opposed to critique-oriented theoretical abstractions that in the view of these participants do not Šgure prominently in individuals’ narratives or the psychoanalytic relationship. ‡e calls for plain talk evoked strong reactions. ‡ose who wished to examine the notion of masculinity through a critical lens argued that the resistance encountered was fear-based and defensive. In return, there were calls for civility, even censorship. ‡ere was no doubt, the argument had turned into a heated conªict. Adrienne Harris, one of the panelists, remarked at that point:
Eruptions into speech and about speech, it might be added; since in the end what had happened in this JAPA colloquium was that a discussion about masculinity turned into a discussion about discursive practices and modes of speech-a discussion about the very possibility and conditions for having a discussion. And once the genie was out of the bottle there was no way of putting it back in. It has been demonstrated once again how much the appearance of clarity and intelligibility depends, perhaps paradoxically, on the assertion of unquestioned premises.
