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.
A CARDINAL TENET OF TRADITIONAL PSYCHOANALYSIS is that the major curative factor is interpretation, whether of resistances, transferences, unconscious conflicts, or such. To be sure, there have been significant rumblings over more recent decades ranging from corrective emotional or reparative experiences with the analyst or others (Alexander, 1950) ; (Roland, 1967), to the therapeutic or working alliances (Zetzel, 1956) ; (Greenson, 1967), to the real relationship between analyst and patient (Menaker, 1942) ; (Szaz, 1963) ; (Roland, 1967) ; (Greenson and Wexler, 1969), to transmuting internalizations related to developmental deficits and arrests (Kohut, 1971) and (1977). But even with these, interpretation in psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic therapy is still considered to be of major importance for therapeutic progress to occur.
In Hiroshima last summer, under the auspices of Dr. Mikihachiro Tatara, an analyst trained at the William Alanson White Institute and the Austen Riggs Foundation, I had the unusual opportunity to become part of a working group of up to 30 approximately, psychoanalytically oriented therapists from many cities in the Inland Sea area—ranging from Kyoto and Nagoya more in the East to Kumamoto in Kyushu Island in the West—the group also consisting of Dr. Tatara's graduate clinical psychology students from Hiroshima University. During a period of a month's time, I