Welcome to PEP Web! Viewing the full text of this document requires a subscription to PEP Web. If you are coming in from a university from a registered IP address or secure referral page you should not need to log in. Contact your university librarian in the event of problems. If you have a personal subscription on your own account or through a Society or Institute please put your username and password in the box below. Any difficulties should be reported to your group administrator. Username: Password: Can't remember your username and/or password? If you have forgotten your username and/or password please click here and log in to the PaDS database. Once there you need to fill in your email address (this must be the email address that PEP has on record for you) and click "Send." Your username and password will be sent to this email address within a few minutes. If this does not work for you please contact your group organizer. Athens user? Login here. Not already a subscriber? Order a subscription today.

(1936). International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 17:471-493

Some Queries on Principles of Technique

M. N. Searl

The title will already have told something about the relation of this paper to the subject of technique. Unless we adhere to principles of technique we either sacrifice their elasticity for the narrow rigidity of rules, or we are outside the realm of law and order and limited to that of shifting expediency. Most papers on technique give us the opportunity of feeling our way toward such principles in a variety of analytical situations, or give a limited number of rules adapted to a limited number of typical situations. Of English papers James Strachey's brought us nearest to consideration of principles, but only Freud himself has given us principles of technique.

A recent stimulus and help has been Hellmuth Kaiser's paper on Problems of Technique. This paper seems to me to grasp the nettle of difficulty both firmly and promisingly. To whatever extent I differ on some of the side-issues, its main theme, reliance on the analysis of resistances, is in complete and, to me, welcome accord with my own previous conclusions, and is stated with much clarity. As Kaiser has pointed out, Freud has, so far at least, left us with little more than a clear indication that the most promising way to pursue is that of the analysis of resistances. Yet Kaiser's paper, following Reich's in some points, is the first to deal specifically and thoroughly with this subject, however much it may be implicit and occasionally explicit in other work on technique.

———

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]