IN THE “TRADITIONAL CLASSICAL” VIEW of the analytic process (Levine, 1994), analysts were seen as objective observers who, given their capacity to hold their countertransference in check, could interpret from a stance that was more or less abstinent and neutral. According to this formulation, under these “good enough” analytic conditions, transference was something that pertained to the patient, technically correct interpretations were considered to be rationally based conveyors of verbal content, rather than forms of action or impulse and meaning and memory,1 while not invariably so, were more or less viewed as objective and stable. The stance of objectivity and neutrality to which analysts aspired insured that suggestion could be minimized, if not eliminated, by a combination of the analyst's technical intent and personal preparation (i.e., analysis and self-analysis). Under such conditions, compliance was seen as a reflection of the patient's conflicts, wishes, and defensive needs.