The Fate of the Defenses in the Psychoanalytic Process

Although recent panels have been concerned with the general topic of ego defenses, relatively little attention has been given to the changes in defenses which are effected by the analytic process. Justin Krent reviewed previous panels relating to these changes and summarized current concepts of defense mechanisms presented at these meetings. Selma Fraiberg traced the changes in a child's defenses as a result of analysis and provided subsequent nonanalytic observations of the same individual as a young adult. Aaron Karush, using material from the second analysis of an adult, contrasted the outcomes of defenses as a result of a difference in analytic approach. Rudolph M. Loewenstein's paper concerned theoretical considerations and, in his absence, was read by the Chairman.

Surveying previous panels, Krent reported that a difference of opinion existed among the members of panels on defense mechanisms and psychoanalytic technique held in London and New York in 1953.1 One panelist maintained that a successful analysis should result in the disappearance of defenses; another asserted that analysis resulted in the modification, not in the disappearance, of defenses and that while the neurotic individual is restricted to the use of primarily one defense mechanism in all situations, the analyzed person is free to use a variety of defenses in an adaptive manner. This difference was not settled, although the latter position seemed to be the one most favored.

The same motif appeared again in more colorful form in one of two 1966 panels on defenses.2 Reference was again made to the 1953 meeting, but this time it was to "the angry analyst," the one who is angry at his