You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In their generous discussions, Rachael Peltz and Jody Davies each consider “Vitalizing Enactment” in the context of leading-edge questions about the noninterpretive interactions that underly “ground-level” contact and “proactive” growth. I reflect on their comments, highlighting my agreements and divergences. I share Peltz’s belief in the importance of connecting with patients in emotionally visceral, enlivening ways and her appreciation for Anne Alvarez’s ideas and their applicability to adult psychoanalysis. We differ in our understanding of enactment and the role of the analysts’ subjectivity. I argue that there is ongoing value in theorizing the impact of the analyst’s subjectivity, particularly in moments of punctuated unbidden action or “E” enactment (Bass, 2003), while Peltz regards the field as the locus of response. Davies and I share a Relational orientation and an interest in the generative or “proactive” function. I agree with her views on the centrality of the analyst’s self-recognition and its role in mitigating shame, as well as the import of the analyst “going first.” I discuss Davies’s developmentally based formulation of shame, “too muchness,” and desire. I also offer a complementary description of shame as “the glue” that encases the inner world and propose that the opposite of shame is freedom.