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.
I have had the opportunity to study a more detailed version of Dr Greenson's paper (this issue). He claims that he represents the Freudian point of view and he describes what he believes to be the Kleinian approach. He proposes to make a clear distinction between Freudian and Kleinian analysis, concentrating particularly on the understanding and handling of the transference. To understand and present clearly the work of other analysts is a very difficult task, but, in spite of Dr Greenson's knowledge of the literature and his personal contact with Kleinian analysts, he misrepresents what might be considered to be the Kleinian contribution to psychoanalysis. This makes it very difficult to consider his paper as a basis of scientific discussion of differences in analytic theory and practice. Some of Dr Greenson's statements about the Kleinian approach seem to be fragments of case reports or papers and are quite misleading, as they are taken out of their context. In addition, he makes some remarks which are quite meaningless to me and which I cannot relate to my own work or that of my colleagues. He deduces, for example, that Kleinians believe that from the beginning of the analysis the child and adult have a well-developed transference neurosis and a trustworthy working alliance, and therefore that they can intervene at the deepest level from the start. In summing up the differences between the Freudian and Kleinian approach, Greenson emphasizes that in the Freudian technique one works only with the ego and all major therapeutic efforts are aimed directly at the ego. He further states that the Kleinian analyst does not concern himself with the capacity of the patient's ego to cope with interpretations, because the analyst believes that the correct content of the interpretation makes insight instantly therapeutically effective. These and similar distortions I would not consider fruitful to argue about. I would be exceedingly critical of any analyst, Kleinian