Discussion

Dr. Pally's interesting paper highlights certain important advances in theory and technique that have taken place in psychoanalysis over the past two decades as well as certain problems which have accompanied these changes.

Dr. Pally begins her paper by stating that “Today we take it for granted that the relationship between patient and analyst is an essential ingredient of any good treatment situation….” In this way she summarizes the now generally accepted view that psychoanalysis inevitably involves the interplay of two minds, two psychologies, and that this perspective is a valuable one not only in helping us understand the complex communications that play so important a role in the analytic situation, but in expanding our view of the therapeutic action of analysis. She then goes on to observe that the nature of the relationship between patient and analyst has been an area of controversy throughout the history of psychoanalysis.

Dr. Pally's paper will, I believe, add to that controversy for in it she espouses a point of view that many analysts will undoubtedly find problematical as it touches on areas of theory and technique that are not yet well defined in our field.

The core of Dr. Pally's paper rests on her contention that the kind of reciprocal responsiveness that is observable in the relationship of mother and infant and that plays a vital role in meeting the child's needs, also exists in the analytic situation and exerts an important influence on the interaction of patient and analyst. She supports this position by citing a clinical example in which she felt driven by powerful unconscious forces to act in a soothing and gratifying manner toward a young woman who had a severely depressed mother and whose manner, bearing, and verbalizations in sessions seemed to call out for just such a response. In Pally's view, the behavior that she