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.
Dr. Loewenstein's paper fills a clear need in our science. Theoretical differences among analysts are climaxed by differences about technique even among analysts who share the same theoretical views. This is not only demonstrated at seminars; most of our students become aware quickly of marked differences in general style and detail between one supervisory analyst and another. Disquieting as such a state may be to the purist, in my estimation this lack of general certainty and the ensuing state of fluidity are challenges that make analytic work particularly fascinating.
The first point I wish to raise concerns terminology. In this area full freedom reigns; every scientist is permitted to coin his own terms if he defines them adequately and sticks to the rules he has thus set up. But terms have their own destinies and are loaded with implications derived from their traditional meanings. It may happen that, despite the definition that has been attached to the term, its effect and actual use may depart significantly from the originator's intent.
I fear this may be the case with Dr. Loewenstein's use of the term intervention which he opposes to interpretation. I share Dr. Loewenstein's opinion that all non-interpretative tools should be viewed separately and, to a certain extent, even in contrast to interpretation; but when we consider the traditional meaning of the term intervention, we must attribute to interpretation the sense of an intervention. Indeed, I should say interpretation is the most powerful and consequential intervention at our disposal. Therefore, in order to avoid further confusion, I suggest that Dr. Loewenstein coin a more neutral term whose newly defined sense will accord better with its own traditional meaning.
It is different with the term 'modification' to which Dr. Loewenstein refers. It is neutral enough to serve the purpose Dr. Loewenstein has assigned to it, namely to signify a technique that can no longer be justly called classical. O