Discussion

Dr. Pally's stated purpose is to contribute to the expansion of psychoanalytic technique in the spirit of Freud's suggestion that analysts not submit to his technical admonitions as if to a taboo but rather should notice their elasticity. But unfortunately, to my mind, Dr. Pally stretches Freud's hypothesis so far that an entirely different, nonanalytic creature results, based on the misuse of data both from infant research and from her own clinical sessions. I will try to illustrate the ways in which Dr. Pally's conclusions are not supported by analytic evidence, and seem to be inconsistent with analytic process, with standard techniques of reconstruction, and with developmental psychology. In fact I regret to observe that the paper comprises a prime example of “genetic fallacy.”

The author asserts, “the transference manifestation I focus on in this paper is from the earliest period of the mother-infant relationship.” But where is the evidence for this? While we hear in detail Dr. Pally's nonverbal responses based on her fantasies about the infant-in-the-patient, she fails to tell us any of the patient's behaviors and associations to her interventions.

The patient, Joan, a 27-year-old nurse, finishing a Ph.D. thesis, presents a dilemma regarding commitment to analysis. Although Pally's stress seems to be on the nonverbal cues as indication of a mother-infant transference, she gives only two small general behavioral details: that Joan was “looking frightened and helpless,” and at another point “it was the manner in which she spoke more than what she said that was significant. This part was totally overwhelmed with anxiety.” The rest of the clinical material consists of verbal reports of Joan's fears which even at the manifest level were not necessarily so primitive: fear of losing her boyfriend to another woman, fear of being alone at night, that an ominous presence would engulf