Discussion

DR. SCHIMEL'S VIEW of the obsessional process illuminates aspects of its role in human behavior in a manner that is refreshing and enlightening. This phenomenon in man is so fascinating, confusing, infuriating and instructive that there are endless ways of observing, interpreting and hypothesizing about it that are valid and informative. Some theorists and observers focus or emphasize those features that their own preconceptions and predilections direct them towards. Others are more impressed with attacking the old and formulating new explanatory conceptions. Still others merely amass more data to confirm existing theory and to underwrite their own flagging convictions. Consequently, some add to a fresh view while others merely obsess and clutter up old ideas with more explanations. We all like to think that we fit in the more enlightened and progressive categories of observers while too often we fit in the mold of the exegete. I believe that Dr. Schimel fits the former category since he occasionally agrees with me and his views are provocative and stimulating.

Dr. Schimel insists that the tendency to label personality configurations in terms like obsessional or hysterical often defeats the main purpose of understanding the underlying dynamics. I agree with him most heartily as do many behavioral theorists who are trying to get away from the historically restricting medical model of syndromes, diseases, monocausal etiologies and the like. We now are inclined to think in terms of reaction types, or adaptive techniqus in which the whole gamut of personality devices, techniques and defenses are employed in the individual's effort to achieve and sustain some viable interaction and self-sustaining mode of living. However, when certain defenses form the core of the individual's functioning or become the major techniques in his integrative activities, then we can acknowledge this fact without implying or conveying a specific disease process. Thus we do acknowledg