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.
The late Harry Guntrip (1975) wrote a fascinating autobiographical paper describing his analysis with both Fairbairn and Winnicott. He also discussed the issue of “how complete a result does psychoanalytic therapy achieve?” This issue is in itself of much interest, but the opportunity to have a first-hand account of the personalities and modus operandi of these three prominent analysts provides an extra dividend. Over the past three decades these three men were clinical pioneers who greatly advanced the theory of “object-relations.” Guntrip wrote that although he had handpicked both analysts and had tremendous respect for each of them, neither succeeded in breaking through his “total amnesia for a severe trauma at the age of three and a half years over the death of a younger brother.” Moreover, the amnesia was “resolved unexpectedly” by Guntrip himself after he had terminated with both analysts. He credits both analysts with preparing him for successful “auto-analysis” by “softening up the major repression.”
Glatzer and Evans (1977) observe that Guntrip “cannot disguise the fact that he is frustrated and dissatisfied” with the incomplete results derived from both analytic experiences. They allege that both Fairbairn and Winnicott failed “to recognize a very specific form of resistance and to deal with an unusual transference situation.” In explaining Guntrip's resistance they say that “instead of being an ally in the therapeutic process,” Guntrip became an observer. “He kept detailed records of every session with both his analysts,” and “neither analyst recognized this as part of his resistance.” This created a “therapeutic misalliance” and “by keeping the diary, he prevented the material [from] being analyzed.”
Abraham (1919) described “a particular form of neurotic resistance”