In the Session

When reading a clinical report by a psychoanalyst, the first question that arises for the reader is whether they can identify with the analyst and imagine themselves in the situation being described. This doesn't mean they would take the same actions as the analyst; rather, it suggests that the scenario presented resonates, prompting the reader to think, “I've been there in some form. I can feel the tension and struggle described. It rings true.” Dr. Moss's report rings true. I can visualize it. I can see myself within it as he recounts his experiences with his patient. Like many clinical reports, this one stages a problem, a dilemma of some kind. Because the dilemma is so well described, Moss brings in enough light for the reader to have the imaginative space to explore other perspectives and possibilities, allowing the object under scrutiny – as if from a slight tilt of the viewer's head – to appear in a somewhat different aspect.

The anguishing dilemma that Moss depicts arises from the impossible divide between being and doing, between the “contracted” analytic task and the actual events unfolding in the hour. The contract involves the patient qua patient and the analyst qua analyst. At the same time, they are both citizens of the world, living in it and experiencing its impacts on them. Crucially, one citizen is Black, while the other is white. If anyone still (foolishly, in my view) questions whether the analytic space is also a political and social space, Moss's vignette makes clear that it most decidedly is. Often enough, the relationships between these spaces are complex and difficult to map. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the shape of the analytic field during this hour is molded substantially by events that began