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 HIS INTRODUCTION, Wallerstein outlined a historical perspective for placing in context the persisting preoccupation about the panel topic over the last four decades. The first clear distinctions were described by Robert Knight in his pioneering papers, and elaborated in a landmark series of panels published in 1954. Wallerstein then repeated the questions he posed in 1969, to serve as a framework for the panel and as a reminder of the shifting positions many analysts have taken since then.
In the 1950's, a sharpened conceptual distinction between psychoanalysis and the spectrum of psychoanalytic psychotherapies was represented by E. Bibring, L. Stone, M. M. Gill and L. Rangell, while an opposing position, blurring these distinctions, was taken by F. Alexander and F. Fromm-Reichmann. A consensus favoring the former views lasted for about two decades. Gradually, altered theoretical and clinical conceptualizations by influential analysts, like H. Kohut and O. F. Kernberg, culminated in modified viewpoints expressed in 1979 by Stone, Gill, and Rangell. Increasing diversity of opinion has continued worldwide. This series of panels marks another stocktaking point, an effort to gauge where we have been, where we are, and where we seem to be headed in distinguishing between psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy.
From Dewald's point of view, psychoanalytic psychotherapy is a form of applied psychoanalysis, derived from its clinical theory and technique. Sharp distinctions between them are often difficult to make. Dewald referred to the difference between "core" and "derivative" elements of psychic structure and function, citing the implications these differences have for defining psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Accordingly, a significant difference between psychoanalysis and