Letters

To the Editor:

In his review of my book, The Intimate Edge: Extending the Reach of Psychoanalytic Interaction (Psychoanalytic Books, 4, 1-14), Richard Chessick writes: “The patient's response to the interaction is what the author calls the ‘power of what can be communicated without words’. The problem with this kind of approach is that it relies a great deal on the intuition and inner conviction of the ‘analyst’ that he or she knows what he or she is doing and raises the controversial issues that first arose with Ferenczi's ‘experiments.’”

I would like to clarify my position. What I emphasize is that no matter what our theoretical orientation, we must recognize that analysis is a complex interactive process that involves dimensions of relatedness and experience, as well as of unconscious and affective communication and enactment, which occur in both directions.

In this regard I think it is particularly noteworthy that as early as 1915 Freud wrote, “It is a very remarkable thing that the Ucs. of one human being can reach upon that of another, without passing through the Cs. “(S. E., 14, p. 194).

My point is precisely that attending to what goes on interactively between patient and analyst, often unconsciously, is essential to avoid dangers of manipulation, suggestion, coercion, collusion, transference cure, etc. In effect this sets a standard of analytic rigor that goes beyond what ordinarily is required rather than the reverse.

I do not, therefore, view attending to interactive factors as a “parameter” that is useful with more disturbed patients. My point is more radical. I am saying that attention to interactive nuance is essential to maintain analytic integrity with any kind of patient. Attending to interactive considerations allows for a level of analytic exploration that simply is not possible otherwise.

For example, an appreciation of the power of interactive forces in the analytic field requires us to recognize the extent to which