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.
Naiman's paper represents a valuable addition to psychoanalytic clinical research. It sets itself the aim of confirming the statement that "a particular psychoanalytic interpretation" can have a direct therapeutic effect, "and that the interpretation produces its effect through insight". Naiman, moreover, adds stringent requirements for such empirical confirmation of
the general statement concerning the specific role played in psychoanalysis by interpretations, as opposed to the supposed curative influence of the analyst's personality. The clinical confirmation presented in Naiman's paper is entirely convincing and is an example of a kind rarely found in the recent analytic literature. I am in complete agreement with Naiman's position in respect of the specific role of interpretations in psychoanalytic treatment.
The general statement about the possible therapeutic influence of interpretations must be made more precise, of course, or qualified in several ways. Firstly, we must remember that interpretations are not the only things that happen during an analysis. A wide range of psychic processes takes place within the patient, and between him and the analyst, which can have a favourable therapeutic influence on the patient—his free associations, and their effects upon him; the various interventions of the analyst prior or preparatory to interpretations; a variety of transference phenomena; the way the analyst helps the patient to deal with them; etc., etc. Among these various factors, "the personality of the analyst" most probably plays some role, but this term is so general and imprecise that no convincing conclusions can be drawn about its alleged influence on the patient.
Secondly, it must be borne in mind that the effects of non-interpretive interventions may be considerable, but none the less not exclusive to the psychoanalytic treatment; th