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.
JACK SUPERVISED ME FOR TWO YEARS, focussing on one psychoanalysis and trouble-shooting other cases. His manner was direct, gaze clear, words precise, thoughts concise and incisive. He
acutely valued thinking, although never at the expense of the data to be considered.
He knew the difference between therapy and analysis. Diagnosis prescribed the form of treatment. As therapist, he used himself decisively and authoritatively. To a depressed, deprived lad, bullied by peers, he taught magic tricks. These for the lad became a hobby, eased loneliness, provided self-esteem and eventually led to the respect of others. When Jack believed individual therapy would benefit an adolescent, he cleared the field for therapy, telling parents that their teen would do the work in therapy, if they remained themselves (i.e., not to change and present new relational challenges), paid the bills, and called him in crisis.
His paradigm of psychoanalysis was Férenczi's, as delineated by Izette de Forrest.1 This included establishing and maintaining an emotional relationship between analyst and patient, keeping up dramatic dialogue and dramatic tension, offering the analyst and analysis as battleground and playground for the patient to use for self-expression and discovery, and for testing the limits of the analyst, to reach towards his or her own potentials.
First the therapist must enable the patient to prehend—not just comprehend, rather apprehend—care. Focussing on the immediate moment leading to the call for the first appointment, the life circumstances and personal relationships surrounding this decision, and expectations of help would facilitate this. A Sullivanian reconnaissance followed, if it seemed the patient were in the right office. Jack practiced the "analysis of significant ot