Acting in Revisited

‘Acting in’ is a term that has not met with much success in the psychoanalytic literature. The literature has focused mainly on quite dramatic forms of acting during sessions rather than on subtler and more common forms of intraclinical acting. Zeligs (1957) gave the term ‘acting in’ a surprisingly restrictive denotation. A redefinition is suggested, characterising this concept with three features: it is a non-verbal action involving the somatic musculature; it has conscious or unconscious meaning conducive to the exploration of dynamics; and it takes place in the session. Inclusive and exclusive criteria are reviewed for the clarification of this important concept. ‘Acting in’ is not considered synonymous with ‘acting out in the transference’. Unlike ‘acting out’, ‘acting in’ can be predominantly of an extratransferential or a genetic nature. Enactments usually include episodes of acting in. What is considered most typical of acting in is the fact of its direct observability and consequent demonstrability to the patient. It is contended that instances of acting in represent a nodal point where the clinical surface becomes especially workable. Clinical vignettes are provided. It is suggested that in order to include acting in in the mainstream of resistance analysis, interpretive assistance should be given to analysands to translate these episodes consistently into verbal understanding.