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.
FEW ISSUES IN PSYCHOANALYSIS are quite so muddled, or tend to generate quite so much confusion in the mind of the clinician, as the relationship between theory and technique. There are many reasons for this, all related in one way or another to the poor match between the kind of work that theory-making is, and the kind of work that clinical practice is. One aspect of this is the inescapable but jarring mismatch between an activity which is inherently public and one which is fundamentally private. Theorizing, necessarily, is done publicly. Theoretical contributions by their nature must be written down or spoken aloud. When they are debated, all participants have access to what is said, if not necessarily to what is meant. Technique, on the other hand, is obviously private. There exists no record of all the transactions constituting an analysis, nor could such a record exist, even in principle.
Because of this, the translation of theoretical principles into technical precepts eludes outside observation. Theory applied is, inevitably, theory interpreted. Personal predilection gives the application an idiosyncratic, and decisive, cast. By the time it is run through the analyst's particular vision of human life, not to mention his personality, the impact of theory is difficult to trace.
It is a commonplace that no beneficial analysis can be accomplished "by the book, " that is, by simple application of theoretical premises to the life history of an individual analysand. However, to deprive technique of the influence of theory altogether is equally harmful. It is certainly true, as Joseph Sandler (1983) has noted, that every analyst—at least preconsciously—holds a theory