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.
Leo Rangell opened the meeting by pointing to the vexing administrative problems which have lately been present in the relationships between child analysis and adult analysis. He expressed the opinion that this panel had the opportunity and luxury to explore the scientific issues involved and that we might well expect one to clarify the other. The scientific considerations can be encompassed under two categories, i.e., the theoretical and technical standpoints.
From the technical standpoint, there is no doubt that many factors, such as differences in the levels of psychic organizations, the lack of a well-developed observing and critical ego, and many other internal psychic factors, require considerable differences in the methods of eliciting unconscious material as well as the use to which they are put. Nevertheless Rangell supports the opinion that the essence of the psychoanalytic method can be and is retained in child analysis in common with adult analysis. However, some child analysts make the mistake of ignoring the differences that exist and artificially squeeze the child patient into the method which is standard for the adult. Rangell also pointed out that within child analysis itself, there is as much difference between child analysis and child therapy as there is in the case of adults between analysis and analytic psychotherapy.
From the theoretical standpoint, child and adult analysis are part of one continuum of understanding, with the same metapsychological body of facts uniting them. From opposite chronological poles each enhances the theoretical frame of the other, to make a cohesive total metapsychological body of