Introduction: W(h)ither Interpretation?

The title of this special issue of JAPA is intended to focus the reader on a conundrum within contemporary psychoanalytic clinical theory. First, whither interpretation? The question suggests a futural orientation: Where are we heading? What is to become of psychoanalytic interpretation and its status as we continue to refine our views of the therapeutic process? Second, these questions become especially urgent as a reading of the contemporary literature suggests a moving away—a withering—of interpretation from having a central place in analytic work. Withering in this case means a drying up, a shriveling, a falling into decay. In some analysts' hands the verbal tends to be discounted in deference to the so-called nonverbal, the realm “beyond words.” The dynamics and dimensionality of intersubjective dialogue—what Litowitz (2007) calls the “second person” perspective—take a backseat to a variety of putative processes that fall under Freud's metaphor of the telephone and unconscious communication.1

Is interpretation diminishing—withering? And if not, where—whither—do we place it among the elements that constitute a psychoanalysis?

In considering these questions, it is natural to begin with James Strachey's canonical paper, “The Nature of Therapeutic Action in Psycho-Analysis” (1934). As you will see as you read the offerings in this issue of JAPA, several of our contributors mention, if not begin with, Strachey. As with many papers of enduring value, Strachey's can be read in a number of ways. His focus is on what he calls the “mutative interpretation,” in which the pursuit of truth (i.e., the patient's psychic reality) is embedded in an ongoing, changing transference relationship in the here and now. Strachey's central claim is that a mutative interpretation—not at all a