Reply to Commentaries

I thank the commentators for their thoughtful reactions. I will take this opportunity to clarify misunderstandings, elaborate aspects of my position, and engage our differences. Given space limitations, I will not attempt a point-by-point reply but will respond to major themes. Points raised by one commentator may therefore be addressed in my responses to others.

Although our differences are emphasized in this dialogue, as I have pointed out, there are many more similarities than differences between Lewis Aron's position and mine. Indeed, Aron's original views on mutuality have influenced my own thinking. Yet Aron disagrees with my assertion that anonymity is inimical to a thoroughgoing application of a two-person view. To my way of thinking, the concept of analytic anonymity is inherently problematic in relational models. It is a stance that was developed to facilitate scrutiny of the analysand's mental content without regard for the existence of the other person in the room and, consequently, for the role that interaction plays in the therapeutic action. An anonymous stance is intended to remove, or at least to reduce, the contribution of the analyst as an individual in the psychoanalytic situation. Thereby, it contributes to the very essence of the “one-person” psychoanalytic situation, emphasizing exploration of intrapsychic processes and downplaying the role of the interpersonal. While supporting the patient's blind acceptance of the analyst's objectivity and authority, anonymity promotes “distortion” qua distortion. Further, it delimits analytic possibilities associated with a more intensive appreciation of the role of relational factors, including crucial