Conflict and Compromise Formation in a Case of Male Homosexuality

Once, many years ago in Warsaw, the great comic actor Karkowski lay dying. His oldest friend, sitting at his bedside, asked him how it was to die. Was it hard, he particularly wanted to know. The great actor thought for a moment then waved the question away with a flick of his wrist. “Dying,” he said, “is easy. Comedy is hard.”

To Karkowski's short list I must add psychotherapy. Psychotherapy is hard because, like comedy, it is more of an art than a science. Psychoanalysis is definitely easier. I don't mean that analysis is as easy as dying, but it is easier than psychotherapy. Why?

As some of us may know from the experience of being at either end of the couch, the amount of systematic data that gets generated in analysis is enormous compared to the amount generated in psychotherapy—perhaps three or four times as much. The relative infrequency of interruptions and the systematic production of associative material in such large amounts makes it possible to grasp meaningful patterns of emotional conflict very quickly, and thus begin interpretive work that is much more difficult to do in psychotherapy. The spaces that occur in treatment when one sees a patient once or twice a week make it very difficult for both the patient and the therapist to remember emotional states, patterns of association, painful thoughts and feelings, even insights, from one session to the next. In analysis this is quite different. One is able to keep one's finger on the emotional pulse of the patient with great consistency. Sharp changes of mood or attitude may be quickly understood if they occur from