The Primary Data of Psychoanalysis

THE QUESTION OF WHAT THE PSYCHOANALYST works with as his primary data leads to ambiguous and enigmatic answers. While it is casually and generally accepted that his primary data consist of the patient's words and their contextual meanings, this is not a proposition that has been extensively studied (see, passim, however, Peterfreund, 1971) ; (Olinick et al, 1973) ; (Olinick, 1978), (1984a). That psychoanalysis is language, as is claimed by some writers, is clinically unacceptable (Olinick, 1984a). On the other hand, to describe in acceptably scientific, verifiable terms the many and varied aspects of nonverbal language has proved a daunting, if not impossible, task.

Few would disagree that the content, substance, or matter with which we deal would not be forthcoming in its immanent meanings were the context and process other than free associations by the analysand and evenly-hovering attention by the analyst. The form or style of the language used and what we are likely to call "content" derive from the continuing interpersonal and intrapsychic processes of free association. When a case history or vignette is transcribed, it is assumed that the important data are included, even though the reviewing analyst's visual, auditory, and olfactory senses are excluded, as are also usually the patient's associations, excepting insofar as imagination and clinical expertise may evoke an approximation of them. Generations of analysts have accepted the premise that sufficient data are included in a case report or a verbatim transcript. At the same time, the clinician should be alert to cues in such subtleties as style, form, syntax, intonation and inflection, gesture and bodily tonus, etc., though in actual practice little attention is explicitly paid such matters except when they take the form of parapraxes or symptomatic acts. However, these matters form part of each patient's code, which the analyst consciously