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 thank Dr. Baudry for his enlightening remarks and I will try to relate to some of them. Dr. Baudry's main concern is the difference between a once a week psychotherapy process and the traditional psychoanalytic setting. The setting used in the case of A undoubtedly brought about quicker interpretation, at times, of the unconscious material and provided the patient with less working through of the defense mechanisms.
However, this patient presented two contraindications for the utilization of the traditional setting. In the presented case study, the patient elegantly objected to any type of analysis of her defenses that would not enable her to imagine in advance what that analysis would be like and that she would feel she had no control over. Her problems in letting go during the beginning phase of the psychotherapeutic process produced the need to sit face to face. In addition, she did not have the funds for the traditional psychoanalytic setting, which is very expensive. This, however, could be interpreted as part of her defenses against the process of getting to know herself better and as part of her need to be in control, putting me in the unavoidable situation of having to accept her limitations, her defenses, and needs, and of trying to learn more about her inner language. It gave me the opportunity to be open to the relevance of her personal language to the specific framework to be used in order to help her. The theory was not forced on her. Rather she revealed a personal drama in a way that the formulations of creativity could easily explain.
Therefore, the quick success, as I see it, was due to maintaining the position of containment and letting A create her own therapist. Winnicott wrote (1948) that many psychotherapeutic processes are blocked because the therapist fails to understand the patient's wish