Therapeutic Criteria of Psycho-Analysis1

Some thirty years ago Hanns Sachs, that past-master in the finesse of expectant analysis, was wont to say that even the deepest analysis did no more than scratch the surface of an unconscious continent. Some fifteen years later a prominent analyst in this country expressed the diametrically opposite view that no analysis could be regarded as satisfactory that did not uncover the infantile depressive position, a stage of organization which, I now gather, is held by some to develop during the first few months of post-natal life! To this sweeping generalization an enthusiastic colleague, at a time when there were between thirty and forty practising analysts in Britain, added the esoteric rider that the number of analysts who could compass this feat could easily be counted on the fingers of one hand.

About twenty years ago, I circulated a questionnaire with the intention of ascertaining what were the actual technical practices and working standards of analysts in this country. Full replies were obtained from twenty-four of twenty-nine practising members, from the examination of which it transpired that on only six out of the sixty-three points raised was there complete agreement. Only one of these six points could be regarded as fundamental, viz., the necessity of analysing the transference; the others concerned such lesser matters as the inadvisability of accepting presents, avoidance of the use of technical terms during analysis, avoidance of social contact, abstention from answering questions, objection to preliminary injunctions and, interestingly enough, payment for all nonattendances, a ruling which, I am glad to know, is nevertheless honoured by some in the breach.

Since that time and despite many symposia on the subject, there is no evidence that even an approximate consensus of opinion on therapeutic criteria has been reached. On the contrary, even if we exclude such schisms as arise from the plain abandonment of psycho-analytical principles, the tendency to