Reply to Commentaries

Abstract

In replying to commentators William J. Coburn and Therese Ragen, I weave together some strands from their discussions in order further to clarify the evolving influence of “mutual” analysis on our thinking and practice. In extending several issues they brought up, and raising some they did not, I expand upon my thesis—based on developmental, psychological, and biological discoveries—that deeply mutual analytic processes are at work in analysis and must and can be addressed to therapeutic advantage. I explore some further features and challenges that result from endorsing such a position—managing self-disclosure and emotional honesty; recognizing the role of mutual healing; and, above all, maintaining a stance that fundamentally respects uncertainty and the self and other as being mutually constituted. I also share some thoughts attempting to position neuroscience among other neighboring disciplines as sources that productively inform analytic work.