You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
THE NATIONAL TRAGEDY and trauma that occurred on September 11, 2001 was a unique event for citizens of this country, and even more extraordinary for those of us who live and work in the New York City metropolitan area. Though it is likely that this event had some immediate emotional impact on most everyone in this region, the variation in reactions were enormous.1 Of course, varying affective reactions or ways of coping were not restricted to September 11 and to the days immediately following. Heightened levels of anxiety remain to this day for some, others' anxieties become reactivated with stimuli like terror alerts and the anniversary of the disaster, and still others appear to live their affective lives just as they did before September 11, 2001. It should be of no surprise that the range of personal and emotional reactions among the population of psychoanalysts likely mirrored the population at large; after all, to paraphrase Sullivan (1953), patients and analysts both are but simply human. This extraordinary event, perhaps unique in this country, though possibly a preview of a more frightening future, opens a somewhat new avenue to examine how analysts and patients relate to one another and influence one another. Core contemporary conceptions like participant-observation (Sullivan, 1953) or its more current variants, observing-participation (e.g., Levenson, 1972; Wolstein, 1976; Stern, 1997; Hirsch, 2003), and mutuality of influence (Aron, 1996), generally refer to