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.
Dear Sir,
I agree with the importance of finding a theoretical basis for the autonomy of the analyst. Without recognizing the essential need of such autonomy to analysis, we are in danger of tacitly assuming that the sole contribution of the analyst is to be empathically in tune with the patient. However, I think to achieve a solid theoretical basis for the necessary autonomy of the analyst there needs to be an change in the theory of object relations. In an effort to avoid making such a change, Dr Caper becomes confusing.
The change or rethinking that needs doing at least concerns an old question. Are we always and for ever and in all instances objectrelated? This question has to do with the issue of primary narcissism and primary envy. The latter being a response to the former that implies no concern for the object but still a response to the object. Winnicott struggled with this and Heimann in her articles on sublimation came squarely down on the side of there being at all times a capacity in the infant for gratification that has no dependence on the object. Even Balint's unobtrusive analyst is, I believe, an effort to tone down the rather