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.
We wish to thank the discussants for their careful and respectful consideration of our theoretical proposals and case material. Different perspectives enrich the dialogue through raising issues and questions and presenting alternative angles. Because a written format requires limited case material as well as limited opportunity for discussion and reply, we will be able to address only highlights of each discussion. We address first the issue of “enactments.”
Because this analysis included some unusual enactments, examples of “throwing the book away” (Hoffman, 1998), we were not surprised about the mixed reviews. Unfortunately, unusual enactments (that is, poignant unconscious and conscious interactions) that are outside our “rule book” tend to serve as lightning rods. Discussions easily gravitate toward the enactments, often decontextualizing them as well as neglecting or minimizing the more traditional exploratory/ interpretive work. This occurred in Crastnopol's discussion as well as that of Trop and Burke. How much we contributed in our write-up to their misperception that we emphasize less the “spirit of inquiry” (Lichtenberg, Lachmann, and Fosshage, 2002) or how much their reaction is a counter-reaction to unusual “out of bounds” enactments is difficult to decipher. While we felt that these enactments within the contexts of this treatment were important and, in these instances,