Comments and Criticisms

Dr. Josephs replies:

I WOULD AGREE WITH GILL'S contention that I converted a continuum into a dichotomy, but I feel that such a dichotomization (i.e. comparing the two ends of a continuum) is useful in highlighting real and significant differences that exist in the theory of therapeutic technique and in clinical practice. Given that all modes of listening and interpreting rely upon inference and speculation, is it possible that certain types of interpretation are relatively less inferential and speculative than others? As an answer to that question, Freud recommended interpreting from surface to depth as a safeguard against premature, too deep, inexact, and incorrect interpretations. Given that everyone agrees with Freud's original recommendation, is it possible that some organizing perspectives are better suited than others to orienting the analyst towards what resides at the surface? I believe that what is at the surface of somebody else's mind is rarely obvious or self-evident to the observer. Ascertaining what the patient is experiencing is just as arduous a task as figuring out what the patient dare not experience and therefore resists experiencing.

I believe that the archaeological model is well suited to ascertaining what is deep (i.e. unconscious) but ill suited to ascertaining what is surface (i.e. conscious). It seems to me that an empathic approach in which one attempts to envision the world from the patient's subjective point of view and then proceeds to interpret that point of view in terms of the phenomenology of the patient's self-experience provides the best orientation to appreciating what resides on the surface of the patient's mind. Although the empathic approach is well suited to focusing the analyst's attention on what the patient is experiencing, it is nevertheless an imperfect observational tool. Kohut never tired of reminding us that empathic failure is inevitable and unavoidable regardless of the sincerity of the analyst's empathic int