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,
Encouraged by re-reading Dr Steiner's paper given at the 1999 IPA Santiago Congress (Steiner, 2000) as well as Boesky's discussion of it in the same issue (2000), I wish to repeat my original comments at the same congress. Steiner's way of approaching the theme of ‘Containment, enactment and communication’ is close to my thinking; nevertheless, there are small but probably important differences, which I hope will not sound like or be used as ‘narcissism of small differences’.
What happens in any analysis is influenced by a blend of verbal and non-verbal interaction, interpretations, the context, the unique and specific basic rapport, the analyst's personality, experience and imagination. Every analyst has an emotional need to do his work in a way that conforms with his own personality and thus he creates a totally individual and characteristic atmosphere. We understand others, their thoughts, feelings, behaviour and perceptions, by trying to give meaning to, ‘make sense of’, their opinions, by using our own viewpoints as a source of fantasy. Fantasy allows us to create an inner view of feelings, convictions and goals (which we do not necessarily share), so that we can understand the conduct of others. ‘Psychic reality’ develops in this two-person relationship by means of an interactive process in which the participants' subjective perspectives are at best continually tested and a certain consensus is reached.
I put a great emphasis on the interpersonal relationship between analysand and analyst, which can—hopefully—become a new and unique type of object relationship. Its main facets are the constancy of interest, acceptance and reliability; the systematic attempt to put the patient's welfare foremost; the suspension of moral value-judgements and the willingness not to require that the patient conform to any particular standard of behaviour. This is providing a ‘holding environment’ that can protect the patient from disruptive levels of unpleasure or disorgani