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.
AT FIRST GLANCE the notion of therapeutic dialogue runs counter to the basic conception of psychoanalysis, which is traditionally a nondialectic2 procedure. Its unique method of communication is free association, while interpretation is the "decisive and ultimate instrument of the psychoanalyst." 2 Ralph Greenson also states specifically that these two procedures give psychoanalytic treatment its specific stamp, in contrast to other forms of communication which occur during the course of analytic treatment but are atypical of psychoanalysis.
It is the thesis of this paper that the therapeutic, analytic process is essentially a dialectic encounter between analyst and patient. A similar point of view has been expressed by Joseph Jaffe. 3 In an essay that explores the common territory between psycholinguistics and psychoanalytic research, Jaffe speaks of a primary verbal therapy as a means of altering the patient's way of experiencing himself and others.
Psychoanalysis in an operational sense has been conceived of as a process of working through resistances by taking advantage of constructive, transferential phenomena. This concept holds as true today as when Freud conceived of it. However, the methods of achieving such a goal have changed considerably. For one thing, making the unconscious conscious is no longer the sine qua non of analytic treatment. Furthermore, the therapeutic value of insight has not stood the