Clarification of the Concept, Optimal Responsiveness: Commentary on Daniel Perlitz’s Critique of My Language in His Article, “Beyond Kohut: From Empathy to Affection”

Dan Perlitz (2016) draws attention to the importance of affection in psychoanalytic practice and how our use of language frequently precludes recognition of its therapeutic significance. Perlitz’s critique of my language encompassed by the term, optimal responsiveness, as experience distant, arises from a misapprehension—in effect, a categorical misconception—of optimal responsiveness. Optimal responsiveness is not defined by the quality of language or the presence or absence of a particular feeling. It is a concept that constitutes a therapeutic approach; that is, the term conceptualizes a way of working psychotherapeutically. It is not meant to indicate any particular response. The optimally responsive therapist may convey any of a wide range of feelings, thoughts, and attitudes, and may also offer actions that may be experienced as specifically therapeutic. With regard to Perlitz’s apparent contention that affection is ubiquitously pivotal in psychoanalytic treatment, I also address his misconstruction, in this regard, of the nature of a particular therapeutic experience in my analysis with Heinz Kohut.