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.
EACH OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO this panel addresses a problem felt by everyone who uses the term "psychoanalysis"—that of establishing close, sensible connections between analytic theory and clinical work. Students are perhaps most aware of the problem, feeling puzzled and frustrated by what is left out of each case description or clinical paper. More experienced clinicians may come to accept the necessity for certain conceptual leaps, and yet at times we may be like those loyal subjects of the Emperor in the children's story, who, though not wearing any clothes, demands that he be admired.
Witenberg (1987) poses the problem most boldly—after describing important inconsistencies and contradictions that pervade psychoanalytic thinking. He asserts, "It is unclear how theory is used to structure observations, and how it is related to diagnostic applications" (p. 188). He goes on to state "… psychoanalysis has no adequate clinical theory" (p. 189).
In his introduction to the panel, Chrzanowski concisely states the paradox underlying clinical work which makes the integration of theory and technique so difficult: "Theory by its basic nature is generic, while clinical work calls for a "custom made" approach" (p. 119).