The current web-site of the International Journal of Psychoanalysis contains a delightful (for me) interview with Owen Renik, former editor of the Psychoanalytic Quarterly and generally perceived as a controversial firebrand in our field.  The interview attempts to elucidate the main ideas Renik proposes in his book “Practical Psychoanalysis” and to get a clear picture of his current sense of himself as an operating analyst and therapist.The interview places Renik’s own narcissism in the fore, but tackles some of the main problems facing the field now – the use of theory, the place of subjectivity in the work, the value of the standard operant form of the analytic enterprise – from the perspective of someone very familiar with the subject and willing to appraise it quite critically.  A few comments on it:

1. Renik’s liberal use of profanity and the vernacular – part of his modus operandi – seems to be a combination of being exciting, attacking, and, perhaps, somewhat defensive.  I find it over the top and grating.  Note that neither of the interviewers follows his lead in this respect; and I think it may cause some readers to overlook the seriousness of his argument.
2. Apparently his practice has developed into one that contains little “old-style” four to five times per week analytic work.  He describes using both regular and some irregular sessions in which analytic knowledge of relational psychology seems paramount.  I found myself describing a similar expected course for analytically informed work when interviewed recently for our Center’s historical archives.
3. Renik has come to a position directly opposed to that which we were taught – that analytic work must be oriented toward self-awareness, not symptom relief.  However when asked to elaborate he says  “But, for example, somebody walks in and says, ‘I have not been able to maintain a romantic relationship in my life.’ That, per se, is not a symptom. That is a complaint that may indicate a direction that needs to be explored in order to identify a symptom.”  That person’s problem maintaining a romantic relationship seems like a symptom to me.  I certainly share Renik’s discomfort with insight-über-all, forcing a person onto an analytic “Procrustian bed”, prolonging work when no change is taking place; and I do agree that his emphasis on placing the patient as an equal partner in our endeavor is a fundamental way to avoid these errors.
4. If a therapist does see the patient as an equal partner, Renik’s observation that “One of the distinguishing features of psychoanalysis historically, and it has remained true, is that it is a treatment method that places a priority upon the most thorough and searching examination of the treatment relationship itself.” becomes a chief and necessary aspect of the work.
5. Renik says, “I would recognize that transference is not something that can be definitively identified and separated from the relationship; it is a hypothesis based on one subjective person offered to another subjective person.”  I agree with the first clause, but definitely do not see transference as an hypothesis – I see it as a basic phenomenon of all relationships that can be observed, studied, but never, I agree, “definitively identified and separated from the relationship”.
6. A key concept of Renik’s is seeing therapy as a corrective emotional experience.  He doesn’t shy away from using that phrase, recognizing that Franz Alexander was criticized 50+ years ago for promulgating it.  He sees – and I agree – Alexander as being incorrect in feeling that he could design the correction appropriate for the analytic work, whereas Renik sees the experience as evolving from the work in a fashion not designed by the therapist but occurring necessarily from the set-up of the therapy as an honest, thoughtful work between equals.  Some characteristics of the work that accompany this view include:
   1. His accent on making hypotheses, not interpretations.
   2. His being comfortable with self-revelations that come from “common sense”.
   3. His readiness to acknowledge his mistakes.
   4. His recognizing that he cannot always keep his emotional “junk” out of the work, but feeling very ready to acknowledge and explore such occurrences.
   5. I hope that some readers will comment from their own perspectives.  While I find Renik’s views refreshing attempts at an honest appraisal of our field, I’d add some provisos:
      1. It’s nice to speak of equality, but there is an expectation that the therapist has something to offer that makes the work unequal in that sense.  It’s necessary to acknowledge that.
      2. The therapist’s “something to offer” includes that very “self-awareness” that Renik decries as a goal.  That’s a complexity to be recognized.
      3. The therapist’s positions of trying to understand and his/her decision on what is common sense both create some inequality to be acknowledged.