arrested selves rather than to solely interpret psychic conflict. Again, there is a bifurcation of libido versus nonlibido paradigms of psychoanalytic praxis. Gedo and Goldberg (1973) call for a more complex typology or paradigmatic schema, asserting that analysts must use five different clini- cal models in order to understand all of their different patients. Contemporary psychoanalysts draw primarily from three clinical mod- els: (1) the nonparticipant mirror (2) participant observation and (3) coparticipant inquiry. In this book, I focus primarily on an exploration of coparticipant inquiry. Whatever classificatory schemas we use in our efforts to order the diversity of psychoanalytic praxis, and however com- plex our theorizing and metatheorizing becomes, the basic facts of the clinical psychoanalytic situation remain invariant. All theories of psycho- analytic therapy represent differing conceptual perspectives on the inevitably coparticipatory nature of the analytic process. The psychoana- lytic encounter, like all human relatedness, inherently defines or involves an intersubjective or coparticipant experience. This fundamental property of the analytic inquiry encompasses two intertwined clinical dimensions: (1) dyadic interactivity and reactivity, and (2) psychic subjectivity, in both (a) immediate experience and (b) reflective structuring of meaning. The psychoanalytic process is, in other words, essentially three-dimen- sional in nature—at once relational, narrational, and experiential. Invari- ably and irreducibly, each and every analytic inquiry, though individually and uniquely patterned, is built out of these interpenetrating elements: a human relationship between two people an effort to form (discover, uncover, construct, or deconstruct) a personally meaningful narrative or interpretation of one’s life and a lived experience of that process and rela- tionship. These dimensions define the analytic process in both micro- scopic and macroscopic ways. Any concrete moment, specific analytic process or dynamic (psychic action, interaction, fantasy, etc.) or part of a session is complexly woven from interpersonal, interpretive, and experi- ential analytic strands. Similarly, on a macroscopic level, these dimensions may be seen as phases of the overall process of any particular psychoanalysis. In a sense, all technical controversies in clinical psychoanalysis derive fundamentally from differing perspectives on these analytic dimensions and ultimately from one’s concept of analytic participation or coparticipation. Contemporary psychoanalytic praxis, as noted earlier, seems to draw from three broad clinical perspectives or models of inquiry: the impersonal nonparticipant mirror, the interpersonal participant-observer, and the per- sonal coparticipant inquiry. Introduction 3