paradigm, its particular premises and emphases, more compelling or com- patible than those of the other paradigms. The emergence of these major paradigms represents focal attempts to comprehend the fundamental nature of the analytic encounter and an effort to find the approach that is clinically most fruitful for the psychoanalytic situation. Each of these par- adigms also arose in response to other factors—intellectual and philo- sophical trends, social currents, previous paradigmatic beliefs, emerging clinical problems (tied to previous paradigmatic limitations), new trends in psychopathology and in its diagnosis, clinical discoveries, trends in psy- choanalytic sensibility, and the general spirit of the times. The different paradigms have generally followed a historical path, from the classical conception of the analyst as nonparticipant blank screen to the interpersonal participant-observer to the coparticipant inquirer. All the paradigms have been influential since the early days of psychoanalytic therapy, but each one came to dominate psychoanalytic praxis in certain historical periods. My classificatory schema of clinical paradigms or models, like all such efforts at classification, is inevitably Procrustean, despite its heuristic merit. It simplifies and clarifies the complex, bewildering plethora of ana- lytic problems and practices, but it misses the individuality and particu- larity of each coparticipant psychoanalytic situation. A fundamental feature of the psychoanalytic encounter is its copartic- ipant nature, expressed clinically in interactivity and experienced subjec- tivity. The three psychoanalytic paradigms I posit offer different ways of seeing the nature of the coparticipatory analytic encounter and its con- stituent psychic subjectivity and dyadic interactivity. The different para- digms guide analysts’ conceptions of the nature and sanctioned or proper use of their analytic coparticipation, shaping their understanding of their integration with their patients. All questions, issues, and personal rules of analytic conduct spring ultimately from one’s concept of his or her par- ticipation in inquiry—from one’s ideas about the meaning, value, and impact of his or her analytic coparticipation. Coparticipation refers to both the intrapsychic and the interpsychic, to the inner psychological world and the outer material world, and to their dynamic and often reciprocal relationship. Analytic coparticipation does not mean only what is visible in behavior, but it refers also to what is felt and thought, to the processes of the mind, as in listening, thinking, judg- ing, evaluating, feeling, wanting, remembering, etc. The psychoanalytic relationship is, without exception, a special instance of human coparticipation. All questions of technique and process derive Introduction 5