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 introducing the panel, Morris Peltz noted that most analysts no longer view themselves as a blank screen for the projection of transference, but as one party in a complicated mutual interaction. He reviewed some of the recent important contributions to the literature (including those of the panelists) which have influenced prevailing opinion on the essential nature and function, within the analytic dyad, of transference, countertransference, enactment, and interpretation. That the patient's and the analyst's experience are both products of a mutual interaction, that both are necessarily enacted in the relationship, and that the analyst's monitoring of these interactions expands the interpretive field and allows new understandings to emerge, are all aspects of a widespread perspective among psychoanalysts today.
Peltz also highlighted areas of agreement among many analysts writing in this area, including the necessity that both analyst and patient be authentically engaged in the analytic work, and that the analyst maintain a respect for the patient that exceeds theoretical commitment. Peltz expressed his opinion that too often we have failed to listen with an open mind and blamed our failures on the patient's psychopathology instead of on a technique that interfered with our capacity to develop a working analysis. He spoke also of differing opinions regarding the nature of the patient's subjective reality, noting the conflicting views (1) that the patient's psychic reality (including his perceptions of the analyst) has primacy as a guide to interpretive activity and (2) that the analyst has a privileged, authoritative view that encompasses the defensive distortions involved