Response to Joseph Masling's (2003) critique of Stephen A. Mitchell

Joseph Masling (2003) criticized Stephen A. Mitchell (1997, 2000) for (a) recommending that the analyst be more active and involved, thereby increasing the risk of sexual involvement with the patient, and (b) Mitchell's belief that empirical data have little to contribute to psychoanalysis. There are no data supporting the hypothesis that the analyst's activity increases the risk of sexual violation. The author hypothesizes that the risk of such sexual acting out is a function primarily of the unique, unresolved psychopathology of the individual analyst, rather than either the model of treatment used or the opportunity for such a violation. The author does agree that Mitchell's belief that empirical data have little to contribute to psychoanalysis is ill advised.