Reply to Reflections by Lewis

Reading the thought provoking commentary to our paper by Jeffrey Lewis (2006) for the first time was like a re-enacted, lived experience of our topic; that is, the intrusion of an unexpected response was, by its sheer surprise, disruptive as we left behind our own place of comfort and self-consciousness struck (Zuckerman and Horelick, 2006). We are happy to report, however, that our reactions did not end there. As we reached Lewis’ conclusion, we realized that we had, in fact, palpably impacted each other through the act of openly and honestly sharing our subjectivities and shortcomings. Yes, this was one more opportunity to “practice the art of being imperfectly human” (p. 369) with one another.

We suspect that Lewis’ interest in responding to our article emanates from his identification with the material presented. We assume he shares both our fascination with extra-analytic encounters along with our commitment to de-mystify them. It is, in fact, our fervent desire to inspire others in our field to discuss and further develop this essential area of inquiry.

Lewis cogently re-caps our review of the literature, two vignettes, and ensuing discussion, adding support to our positions with Ferenczi, Balint, and Searles’ groundbreaking discussions of mutual analysis, countertransference, and the dangers of the authoritarian, omniscient analyst. Aron (1996) depicts the essence of Ferenczi's contributions.

Emotional honesty, accessibility, directness, openness, spontaneity, disclosure of the person of the analyst—these create in the patient heightened naturalness,

Page 381

forthrightness, access to the repressed, recognition of and sensitivity to the other, increased self-esteem …. The analyst becomes a distinct and real person whom the patient genuinely affects and is affected by.

We appreciate Lewis’ inclusion of the work of these psychoanalytic luminaries whose emphasis on the analyst's responsiveness sheds increasingly complex light on the extra-analytic encounter as both