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.
Unbelievable as it may sound, in the whole vast library of psychoanalysis—clinical, theoretical, technical or applied—there are hardly any references which outline the logical guidelines or the methodological rules which the analyst follows in order to understand his patient. Works on psychoanalytic technique are replete with the rules of therapy—with the timing, the types and the ways of formulating the comments which the analyst can convey to his analysand. However, the analyst's interpretations can only be derived from his own understanding of the patient's story and frequently they are only a part of the inferences the analyst makes first in his own mind as he listens along, hour after hour, to what the patient talks about.
Dispersed in Freud's monumental works, especially in his earlier clinical writings, can only be found a few passages where he gives an occasional description of how he reasoned out what he observed, or statements in misleadingly simple language of one or the other logical tenets he followed in reaching his conclusions. As time went by, the various theoretical constructs and working hypotheses developed by generations of psychoanalysts became intermingled within the clinical accounts and taken for granted as if they were self-evident facts which needed no further proof or explanation.
A careful scrutiny of the literature would turn up, of course, several contributions which deal directly or indirectly with the psychoanalytic method. They correctly claim that it is a careful investigation of the human mental processes, which proceeds in a rational and objective manner and follows strict methodological rules that adhere to the accepted canons of the scientific method. How this meticulous investigation is conducted or how this rational and objective method proceeds or what canons it follows are issues which are always left unsaid and undefined or at most but vaguely sketched or taken for granted.
Recognizing the lack of any established canons f