ABSTRACT
Although iam in essential agreement with the thrust of Evelyne Schwaber's remarks, I would like to separate several issues that are somewhat condensed in her presentation, question certain implications, and highlight some points that may be lost in the glare of her major argument. In the beginning, for instance, Schwaber articulates two clusters of definitions of empathy. One grouping is “as a mode of human relatedness; as a way of understanding, knowing and responding; and as an early and ubiquitous developmental nutrient.” The other is “as a method of observation, a technical modality, or an adjective describing one—sometimes part of the analytic ambience, and sometimes the matrix of the analytic method.” The distinction between these two clusters I find somewhat obscure.
