The author considers the concept of enactment as a ubiquitous event that is best seen as part of a sequence in the process of understanding a patient. As such, enactments are not unusual or special save as they are often subject to disavowal or to being singled out by the analyst as especially subject to scrutiny. Once recognized, enactments need to be interpreted: not so much in terms of their unconscious origins, but more with regard to the need to include them in the analytic dialogue.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, M.K. (1999). The pressure toward enactment. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association47:503—518.
2.
Bacal, H. (1985). Optimal responsiveness and the therapeutic process . In Progress in Self Psychology, vol. 1, ed. A. Goldberg. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press, pp. 202—227.
3.
Chused, J. (1991). The evocative power of enactments. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association39:615—640.
4.
Frank, K. (1999). Psychoanalytic Participation Action, Interaction, and Integration. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
5.
Gadamer, H-G. (1962). On the Problem of Self-Understanding in Philosophical Hermeneutics, ed. D.E. Linzi.Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 44—58.
6.
Goldberg, A. (1996). It is all interaction. Psychoanalytic Inquiry16:96—106.
7.
Hartmann, H. (1950). Comments on the psychoanalytic theory of the ego . Psychoanalytic Study of the Child5:74—96.
8.
Jacobs, T. (1986). On countertransference enactments. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association34:289—308.
9.
Mclaughlin, J. (1991). Clinical and theoretical aspects of enactment . Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association39:595—614.
