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.
To open the discussion on the two prepared papers of this Symposium is an honor which I accept not without hesitation. Dr. Hawkins has remarked very kindly that I am myself responsible for one well-known extension of psychoanalytic therapy; she has not mentioned the fact that I have had no hand in many others. This omission is due to certain principles which govern the selection of cases in the practice of a lay analyst, even in a country like Great Britain where authorities and public are extremely generous in their attitude to lay analysis. It is true that my clinical experience extends beyond the run of the common neuroses to character problems of all kinds, including those with severe ego deformities; to perversions, alcoholism, manifest homosexuality, etc.; but it stops short of the severe depressions, as described by Dr. Jacobson, or the prepsychotics and schizophrenics, mentioned by Dr. Stone, except where cases of this kind arrive with their disturbances well hidden under a neurotic aspect. You may find that this lack of first-hand experience in important directions detracts from the value of any remarks which I may have to offer.
On the other hand, the subject of analytic technique and its legitimate variations has been a fascinating one to me since the times when I, as a beginner, attempted to treat children; when I had occasion to watch Aichhorn adapt the orthodox technique to the treatment of delinquents; when I listened to Federn's descriptions of his variations of technique for psychotic cases, and to Rank's and Ferenczi's explanations of "active therapy"; and when I witnessed Wilhelm Reich's exciting and promising beginnings of so-called strict defense analysis, etc. Later, when I was teaching,