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.
I was sitting on a bench in a picturesque Swiss spa close to the Austrian border. Water was trickling from a fountain. All around were red roses and glorious mountain peaks glittered in the summer sunshine. My mind would not stay with the peaceful scenery, but it took me back to the top of a nearby gorge where I had spent the last few days. Centuries ago that daunting and remote spot was visited by the famous doctor Theophrast von Hohenheim, called Paracelsus, who wrote about the healing power of its waters. There in the old cloister of Bad Pfafers, now restored to be used for conferences, an unforgettable Davanloo-Malan symposium was held. For three days two hundred participants had been gazing at video pictures of patients and the therapist interacting on a large screen at the end of the long and narrow main hall. The comments given by the presenters on each case were brief and to the point. It was an impressive show. Some of those who had not seen Davanloo's work before found in disconcerting. Those of us who have already battled with the technique were only intent on grasping it better; we needed no further convincing.
Malan had declared himself sceptical when he first saw Davanloo's technique. The latter elaborated the point. According to him, not once but for several years, in conference after conference, Malan and other psychoanalysts viciously attacked him contesting his method. This was recounted in a jovial atmosphere in the second half of the symposium. By that time 15 to 20 out of 200 participants had left the meeting in silent protest. They had found little chance to vent their discontent and virtually no opportunity to participate. Having come mainly to listen to Malan, whose books they had read and whose approach to dynamic brief psychotherapy they had learned, they felt painfully let down. Malan now is completely convinced that Davanloo's technique is more effective than his own, which he has described in his books. The main difference in approach is