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.
Rosenfeld (1974) in his reply to my paper (Greenson, 1974) does not discuss my paper, but dismisses it. He states that Greenson 'misrepresents what might be considered the Kleinian contribution to psychoanalysis', his case reports 'are quite misleading, as they are taken out of context' [my italics]. In addition Rosenfeld states that I make 'some remarks which are quite meaningless' to him, and my paper is 'not fruitful to argue about'. Of the clinical material I quoted, he would be 'exceedingly critical of any analyst, Kleinian and non-Kleinian, working in this way' (1974, p. 48).
The main thesis of my paper concerns the basic differences in the way Freudians and Kleinians work. I came to this conclusion, not only after reading the literature, but in my supervisory hours and in seminars with prominent Kleinians. (In these seminars, given to some thirty analysts, the few Freudian analysts who remained agreed that there were essential divergences in theory and technique.) I expected that Rosenfeld would agree that the differences I had discerned existed, but would argue in favour of Kleinian procedures. Or else he would show that I had mistaken the differences and would advance others. But the word might, in my first quote from Rosenfeld, indicates that he had decided not to meet the issues head on. Instead, he denies differences altogether. He presents a case 'which any of us may have to deal with in the course of analytic work', a case which implies that there are no differences between Freudian and Kleinian technique (1974, p. 48). Of course we know that similarities do occur, but it is certainly not the rule, and not the subject of my paper.
In the clinical material I presented as being essentially Kleinian in technique, early, deep and frequent interpretations were used predominantly. Does Rosenfeld mean to disclaim the fact that my presentation of verbatim reports of Klein and Segal are not typical for Kleinian technique? It would seem so. Instead o