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.
Dr. Young-Bruehl links her concept of developmental dreams to Freud's (1905/1961) “typical dreams,” which nearly everyone has and shares. This connection may be problematic since hers arise mostly during analysis. Acknowledging this restriction, should they be specified as typical treatment dreams?
Being so broad, her term might suggest any significant step in life, not just the comprehensive review/preview she intends. Might it be more accurate to call them “dreams of developmental quest”?
Adam Phillips once said that he was not sure dreams had meaning, but they were useful for making meaning. From this perspective, when Dr. Young-Bruehl says she rapidly recognized the first specimen dream as developmental, I would be inclined to say she quickly construed it as such. These co-created interpretations, situated between biography and autobiography, might be called autobiographical.
Combining all these considerations, we might call these visions “autobiographical dreams pertaining to the developmental quest for personal transformation.”
A patient's first dream frequently tells the story of the analysis to come. It might therefore be viewed as a developmental dream par excellence. It is special, as is the first one portraying the analyst. The first time is always special. This inaugural quality was frequently mentioned in Dr. YoungBruehl's illustrations.
Besides this newness, what might be particularly special about her dreams? Emerging a year or two into analysis, they are felt by patients