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.
Fred Busch opened the panel by noting that the idea for it had come from the observation that in many respects all schools of psycho-analysis view defenses similarly. Defenses are generally understood as self-protective measures, and it is generally agreed that they are best addressed analytically on the basis of mutually observable facts about the patient's behavior in analysis. Given this consensus, why is there then such disparity in the way that analysts from different schools actually work with defenses? Busch hoped that the panel might help to address this question.
The second impetus for the panel came from Busch's experience talking with other analysts about his view of defense analysis. Frequently, he noted, colleagues will respond, “We've always worked that way.” However, he has observed that their clinical techniques are in fact quite different from what he is describing.
The panelists were chosen to allow comparisons among different perspectives on defense analysis. Each was asked to comment on three clinical hours of the work of an experienced analyst. The panelists were asked to describe how they would work with this material, and how their approach might differ from the approach to defense analysis evident in the clinical hours.
Busch introduced the clinical material, which was from the third year of the analysis of a married man in his thirties working with a senior analyst. The patient, Phillip, had presented with long-standing depression and anxiety and a fall-off in productivity in his academic position following a stellar graduate school career. He had a tendency to “shoot himself in the foot” and antagonize others. He was the eldest