English Social Sciences Psychology

Dear colleagues,
I’m not sure I’ve understood correctly the meaning of the verb “challenge” in the text below, taken from an essay about humiliation in cases of trauma and dissociation.
In the first occurrence, the author, referring to the discussion of a paper by Nina Fahri, says: “In my discussion of Farhi’s work, I challenged the notion of psychosis”. But later on, he adds: " In her discussion, challenged by me, she nevertheless agreed with my position.”. My doubt is the following: if he challenged her discussion, how could she agree with him? Might "challenge” have a different meaning here? Or maybe she agreed with him after he had challenged her? Actually, the situation is made more complicated by the fact that they refer to another author, psychoanalyst Winnicott... so I’m not sure who agrees and disagrees with whom!!
Thank you for your attention and patience!

******************************


By chance, some years ago I was invited to discuss a paper by a brilliant disciple of Winnicott, Nina Farhi, who had taught Winnicottian theory for at least 30 years (Chefetz, 2008). Farhi, following Winnicott, presented the case of a psychotic woman. Upon reading the exquisitely detailed protocol, I was taken by the descriptions there in the same way I found Winnicott’s dream language clearly pointing to experiences of depersonalization, both in his patient and in his countertransference dream. *** In my discussion of Farhi’s work, I challenged the notion of psychosis *** and opined that the patient was suffering from a dissociative disorder with profound depersonalization described by having holes in her body that “birds could fly through.” *** In her discussion, challenged by me, she nevertheless agreed with my position ***. She held Winnicott’s perception of the particular case of her patient’s depersonalization as psychosis.