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.
In a brief reply I think that I would like to take up the following points which stood out in the discussion: the problems of choice of interpretation, timing of interpretation, and transference in child analysis, really the whole content of our paper. Obviously I cannot deal with all this fully here.
I would only like to say that the concept of
timing which has been lost in the whole of Klein's technique is a problem which needs careful thought and discussion. Curiously, we have never centred on this. If timing is looked on as something negative and is described in terms of 'withholding interpretations', meaning that the analyst should not have or develop insight which he does not immediately communicate, I think that this opens a very great and basic disagreement in analytic work. Such ideas disregard completely the structural aspect of the personality, the whole concept of the unconscious, the preconscious, and the ego's capacity to assimilate and deal with repressed content. The whole meaning of timing, in the sense we have put it forward, relates to the fact that deep intrapsychic conflicts and related unconscious phantasies are unacceptable to the ego. We carry out the work of interpreting from the surface to the depth. The need to work on the defences gradually up to the point where the defended content becomes acceptable and conscious is a slow process. I miss this process in Kleinian analysis, with which I think I am familiar, and I have given a great deal of time to understanding its technique. I feel there is a great need to look at this problem and its dynamic implications and not just to say 'Timing means withholding of interpretations and bad analysis'. We really need to be clear about the concepts of the unconscious and preconscious, of what can be assimilated, and what we really mean by defence interpretation, by gradual reachi