Discussion of “Early Childhood Development and Implications for Analytic Theory and Practice”

Dr. Chess has touched upon most of the issues currently important in child development research. She has also referred to many aspects of analytic theory and practice. En passant she mentioned social policies and research methodology. Were we to do justice to all she said, it would require not only this entire day but a seminar of indefinite duration.

Let me begin by recalling one statement our speaker made that is central to the whole of her presentation. She said that no theoretical model that assigns the same life experiences as antecedents for psychopathology in all cases can do justice to the tremendous variations in outcome. No one could disagree with that assertion-not since the number of longitudinal studies of both normal and at-risk populations has become impressive. It was implied that the psychoanalytic model of child development does postulate an invariable link between early life events and later maldevelopment. I wonder whether it is psychoanalytic theory that makes this assumption. It seems to me that certain extensions and also misunderstandings of analytic theory that were rampant in mental health circles and were influential in shaping popular ideas and perceptions may be involved. Anna Freud, surely a spokesman for psychoanalytic views on child development, has been very explicit on this point. She made it clear that a knowledge of early life events of a disturbing and seemingly harmful nature does not tell us whether or not a child has been traumatized, much less the consequences of the event for developmental outcome. Her most recent utterances on this point were published in 1958 (Psychoanal. Study Child,