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 this commentary, I will highlight certain perspectives on the analyst's participation that contrast with and complement those of Sholes. My ideas emerge from an interpersonal, relational tradition, one that flows, most specifically, from the foundational contributions of Ferenczi, Sullivan, Thompson, and Fromm, and their elaborations in the work of Searles, Levenson, Wolstein, Hirsch, Hoffman, Mitchell, Davies, and Maroda, among others. In particular, I will discuss: 1. self-disclosure as technique and as self-expressive participation; 2. the illuminating and obscuring effects of favoring any participatory mode; 3. differing perspectives on technique; 4. unidirectional and bidirectional models of transference; 5. deficit- and conflict-based representations of patients; and 6. hierarchic and collegial modes of consultation and supervision.
In his paper, Sholes presents his work with George, a thirty-one-year-old artist who, at the start of therapy, was isolated, inhibited in the expression of sexuality, and mired in a crippling self-experience organized around themes of defect and toxicity. He seemed to have little idea as to who he was or might become. Over the course of therapy, Sholes came to feel like a father, lending strength, worldliness, and tolerant acceptance to a patient-son who, fearfully, embarrassedly, and gratefully, soaked up these infusions of goodness. At various times, Sholes felt inclined to partner George by revealing details about his own experience. Both he and George recognized that, in so doing, Sholes was stretching himself in ways that, he believed, were responsive to George's yearnings. This was an intimate and heretofore unprecedented kind of sharing (in different ways, for both participants).