G& R. Blanck on 'Modes of Cure'

SIR,

This communication refers to the paper by Robert Langs entitled 'Modes of cure in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy', which appeared in Volume 62, Part 2, 1981, pp. 199–214.

Before publication of this paper, we had personal communication with Dr Langs informing him that he was misrepresenting our position. That he chose to proceed with publication nevertheless is clear indication that this misrepresentation is intentional.

In his paper, Dr Langs uses material from a case contributed by one of our students as a 'vignette that helps us characterize manifest listening and intervening' (p. 202). The original material in our book, Ego Psychology: Theory and Practice, pages 305–306, was presented line-by-line in order to offer the reader an opportunity to follow as closely as possible exactly what transpired between patient and therapist. We had no way of conveying what went on in the therapist's mind, but we have no doubt that there was due consideration for unconscious communication. Dr Langs' version paraphrases this material, thus enabling him to slant it to his own purposes. Thus, he is able to conclude that 'there is no concept of an unconscious communicative interplay between patient and therapist' (p. 202).

In fact, the very thrust of Dr Langs' paper is to prove that very few analysts other than he understand and use the concept of unconscious communication. There is no way to accomplish such a purpose other than to distort the positions of other analysts for, by definition, every analyst uses unconscious communication as a concept every day in every case that he or she treats. Perhaps the style of usage is not to Dr Langs' linking, but that is another matter.

If Dr Langs does indeed have a valid point to make, surely it can stand on its own merits without requiring that he misrepresent the views of others for the questionable advantage of placing himself in a better light. We informed him that, when we summarized the works of the ego psychologists, we sh