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.
Will our patients be best served if we, as analysts, are guided by loyalty to a single theory?—or better served if we sometimes bring other approaches into play in response to the unpredictable turns in any treatment as it moves along, gets stuck, and moves along again? This has been raised by Coburn (2006), and again by Pickles and Shane (2007a, b) in two issues of Psychoanalytic Inquiry in which Pickles presents her treatment of a severely traumatized patient, with discussions by 10 other analysts.
Pickles and Shane (2007b) assume that “informed variety affords the clinician flexibility and responsible choice” (p. 1). But recognizing that not all analyst-patient pairs thrive on multiplicity, they conclude “that while one theory does not fit everyone, one way of holding theory does not fit everyone either” (p. 1).
I share Pickles and Shane's (2007b) assumption concerning clinician flexibility and responsible choice (Teicholz, 2006c) but also admire those who feel that a self psychological approach is all that is ever needed with any patient. In a thoughtful critique of my papers on the analyst's empathy and authenticity (Teicholz, 2000, 2002), Gossmann (2007) emphasizes the “continued effort on the part of the analyst to recognize his analysand's subjectivity