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 practice and teaching of dream analysis is problematic to say the least. Although Freud's writings on dreams still remain a source of inspiration, candidate and analyst alike must find some orientation within the ambiguities and contradictions in Freud's writings and amidst the opposing views of rival psychoanalytic models. The literature generally suffers from a lack of detailed, interactive clinical dream data that elucidate the process of interpretation. Yet, beyond the not inconsiderable difficulties posed by this general lack of consensus, the clinician must also contend with the internal struggles to see the patient's dream as a reflection, however disturbing, of his own contributions to the therapeutic interaction.
As a teacher and supervisor of candidates, I have repeatedly been the recipient of frank admissions from candidates that although they have studied basic dream concepts, they were still struggling with integrating the theory of dream with its application to their clinical work. The unique contributions of their patients' dreams in elucidating the various components of the analytic process escaped them (). Such basic concepts as manifest and latent dream content, day residue, dream work, were, of course, familiar to them. Yet these concepts remained isolated from dynamic and meaningful dream interpretation. The initial excitement of hearing their patient's dreams would soon “fizzle out,” a potential bang ended with a whimper. Thus they were left feeling deprived of one of the main sources of satisfaction derived from a well-conducted analysis.