You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In designating these observations as “further,” I am alluding to prior papers on the same subject (Lipton, 1977a, 1977b, 1979, 1982, and 1983). In a nutshell, I have been attempting to demonstrate that important and valuable elements of Freud's technique have been repudiated. I maintain that a trend in technique, now called Freudian, classical, or standard, is, in fact, a post-Freudian development.
In understanding Freud's technique, I think that it is important to know something about the history of the currently accepted distinction between psychoanalysis proper and psychoanalytic psychotherapy. By psychoanalysis proper, I mean what is generally understood by the term as a treatment in agreement with Freud's definition, with the current emphasis on formal requirements: duration, frequency of sessions, and the use of the couch. The best definition, or perhaps description, I have found of psychoanalytic psychotherapy is that it is a form of psychotherapy based on the theoretical and technical principles of psychoanalysis “without, however, fulfilling the requirements of a psychoanalytic treatment as strictly understood” (LaPlanche and Pontalis, 1973, p. 373) I think this statement captures the dilemma that has arisen in trying to reach a consensus on the distinction.
The point which is relevant to my thesis is that Freud never made this distinction at all. I do not know if this fact is generally known. In my sampling of the literature, I found only a single explicit reference to it (Thompson, 1977, p. 202) In the earliest papers I found (Knight, 1937;)