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.
INTRODUCING THE PANEL, Bachrach observed that when this subject was first taken up in a series of panels in 1954, other clinical disciplines were embracing psychoanalysis, and the climate was ripe for emphasis on the differences between psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy. In 1954 M. M. Gill and L. Rangell saw the crux of psychoanalysis in the development and resolution of a transference neurosis by interpretation, while psychotherapy was the skillful manipulation of transferences toward therapeutic ends. While maintaining these differences, L. Stone called for a widened scope of indications for the application of the psychoanalytic method employing clinically indicated modifications. Anna Freud questioned this effort. Both Stone and A. Freud called attention to "grey" areas of modifications and variations. The clinical and conceptual consequences of such modifications have continued to be a subject of debate.
Bachrach made a distinction between the clinical elasticity of the psychoanalytic method and the scientific elasticity of the method. He noted that when the method is altered, the relation between free association and transference is altered, the resulting data are influenced, and one can no longer be certain whether such data can be used to confirm psychoanalytic hypotheses. He raised the following question: When does a modified method become a new method by which analytic hypotheses can no longer be tested, and to what extent does psychoanaytic psychotherapy have a method that is scientifically comparable to psychoanalysis?
Bachrach observed that the panelists had not responded to the topic of the panel with a list of indications. He suggested that this was