But always behind in the Count: A Response to “Sluggers and Analysts”*

Our Intense Focus on the immediate relational presence of the analytic encounter can seduce us into feeling that the consulting room constitutes a world unto itself, and the analytic dyad a subculture with a population of two. The intimacy of the repeated, ritualized meetings, the tight seal of confidentiality, and the constant attention to what is happening right now can blind us to the obvious fact that both patient and analyst live in the real world and are engaged in a socially constructed practice that is interwoven in complex ways within the broader culture that shapes both participants and their joint project. Zeddies reminds us that the psychoanalytic community in particular—a subculture with its own history and lively discourse regarding theory and conduct—is alive as a constant presence in the consulting room, shaping the interaction, generating the universe of possible understandings, and defining acceptable and unacceptable actions.

The psychoanalytic world is imported into the consulting room, in part, via what Zeddies calls the analyst's “psychoanalytic unconscious,” which he defines as “the unreflective, automatic, and spontaneous manner in which we organize, experience, and interpret the patient, ourselves, and the unfolding analytic relationship into a larger, meaningful, and therapeutic matrix of psychic possibility.” Included in this notion are the many values, identifications, theoretical loyalties, and technical preferences that shape the analyst's therapeutic style. But, as the preceding definition suggests, it also refers to fundamental features of the analyst's working self—Zeddies uses the term “experiential generator”—as that has been shaped by the analyst's training experiences.

Zeddies argues that it is through the moment-to-moment operation of the “psychoanalytic unconscious,” this implicit, often unrecognized, set of values, theories, and techniques expressed through the unique