Discussion Of “Observing-Participation, Mutual Enactment, And The New Classical Models” By Irwin Hirsch, Ph.D.

DR. HIRSCH HAS WRITTEN an extremely interesting, thought-provoking article that traces the development of the concept of enactment within the “traditional” or “classical” form of psychoanalysis, relating it to the thinking of the post-Sullivan interpersonal school. He demonstrates how the two theoretical points of view converge in their understanding of interpersonal and interpsychic phenomenon, making the point that if traditionally trained analysts had been more open to interpersonal psychoanalysis, they would have appreciated the analyst’s inevitable subjectivity, the patient’s sensitivity to the affect and desires of the analyst, and the analyst’s contribution to analytic material, much sooner. In his focus on the demonization of the interpersonal school by the traditional one, he emphasizes the benefits a greater familiarity with the literature of interpersonal psychoanalysis would have provided. With this I cannot help but agree. What is true for psychoanalysis is also true for many areas of both the sciences and humanities; a wish to maintain a belief in the correctness of one’s training and theoretical assumptions frequently leads to an avoidance, if not an absolute condemnation, of all that challenges it.

Fortunately, we seem to be entering a new era of psychoanalytic thought. For most of us, psychoanalysis no longer is a panacea for every form of psychopathology. We no longer try to fit patients to the treatment. We examine carefully what we do, trying to discern what is helpful