Discussion of “Deadlocking and Stalemating: Primitive Defense Mechanisms against Progression in Psychoanalysis,” By Jochen Kemper

I would like to thank Dr. Kemper for his presentation of a rich and challenging case which captures the dynamic interplay between transference and countertransference. His courage in sharing his unwelcome reactions of boredom, sleepiness, and irritation is commendable. Considering the fact that this patient was in treatment for five years, one can appreciate the difficulty of condensing the material and focusing on five sessions in a two week period in the fifth year of the analysis.

This presentation raises for me some questions and concerns. Dr. Kemper presents the patient to us through three dreams and the five sessions. Implicit in this mode of presentation is a view that the dreams and selected content from a series of sessions would be most representative and revealing of the person. Kemper also informs us that the patient is married, is a father, and that he is upper middle class, educated, and an engineer. We are given a brief history highlighting the patient's unwelcome birth, noting that he was the only son with two older sisters, was an outstanding student, pleasing to adults, but alienated from his peers by his nonparticipation in sports and games. The only other salient features described in his history are his Roman Catholic upbringing and attendance at a prestigious Catholic secondary school. Of particular note is Kemper's explanation of the religious climate, particularly the influence and incorporation of forbidden beliefs and practices of spiritualism and voodooism into the mainstream religion. Considering the syncretism Kemper mentions, it would be helpful to know how the patient experienced the confessional and his relations with the fathers of the Church and how such experiences are played out in the transference.