The concept of enactment has undergone numerous revisions since its inception in 1986 (Jacobs). Following the trajectory of terms like projective identification and countertransference, it has gone from unacceptable acting out to possibly being the most significant relational exchange between analyst and patient. It is not only seen as a joint repetition of the past, but also as a potential vehicle for changing the future. The therapeutic benefit of enactment has been heavily emphasized despite the fact that no unified theory of its therapeutic action exists, nor any body of technique to apply when it occurs. This article provides an historical review of the term's use in analytic discourse, challenges the belief that the unconscious-to-unconscious communication between analyst and patient necessitates it, and points out that many enactments do not end well. While acknowledging that enactment is inevitable, an argument is presented here for ongoing affective communication that minimizes both the frequency and intensity of enactments.