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.
I have, I hope, softened some the asperities of the first edition, eliminated some of its inelasticity in approach and dissipated some of those priggish airs which, however natural to his estate, ill become either the tyro or tutor in psycho-analysis
I have two patients who have referred many people to me over the years, remaining in treatment with me themselves and to varying degrees becoming container, consultant, and coanalyst to all the people they've referred. I call these people Mrs. K's community and Mrs. T's community. I use the word community rather than “group” because the beneficial influence these women have had extends beyond the people they've referred. It goes beyond the “group” of my patients to include many people who have chosen not to be in analytic treatment, but are the friends, families, and coworkers of Mrs. K and T, who continue to provide emotional education in whatever form is comfortable to each. One of the talents the women share is being able to give people who are frightened of jumping into analysis psychoanalytic morsels in ways that hold, rather than push away or pressure. They are instinctively respectful of resistance. Because of this ability, family, friends, and acquaintances of Mrs. K & T have come to me for analysis when they were ready.
Phyllis Meadow (1995) has written about out-of-office contact among the analyst and patients who know each other. She was speaking of people who are analytic candidates or in the field of psychoanalysis. Little has been written about communities of patients who are not in the profession. Neither of the patients I am writing about here are in this field. The question arises as to whether there is a difference in treating people who know each other from training together and working