Response

I want to thank the discussants for their thoughtful responses. The paper evoked a broad spectrum of responses, ranging from very positive to very negative. This wide diversity of reactions makes replying a difficult task. Several general comments will help focus my response. I assume, as a psychoanalytic tenet, that all associative material and transference phenomena are the result of contributions made from many facets of the patient; genetic history, unconscious fantasy, intrapsychic conflict, ego strength, to name a few. To speak of one facet, the contribution made from early mother-infant nonverbal communication, is not to dismiss or reject the contribution of other factors, but rather to draw attention to what seems salient at the moment, and to address what is neglected in other clinical writings. Clearly it makes for livelier debate among discussants to point out what is left unmentioned or underemphasized, but unfortunately that kind of debate can miss the point entirely. I do not intend for reciprocal responsiveness to be either the total, or the only, explanation of the interaction between Joan and myself. Instead I am illustrating that my sensitivity to this nonverbal dialogue is one element which oriented me to Joan's fragile and vulnerable ego state, which I might otherwise have missed if I had simply responded to the verbal content of her anxieties.

My hypothesis regarding the application of reciprocal responsiveness to psychoanalysis is not presented as scientific truth. Scientific endeavor encourages a stretching of the mind. It is a creative act, formulating plausible theories to account for observations. The theories should be considered only as provisional approximations. A healthy skepticism about the “truth” of theories, should not, however, diminish enthusiasm for both creating and continually searching to improve upon these provisional approximations.