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.
No presentation of classical psychoanalytic technique ever mentions that it is drastically different from Freud's technique. On the contrary, at least implicity one is left with the impression that one is facing a technique which had been determined exactly that way by Freud himself. And would you not expect Freud to be the classical psychoanalyst par excellence?
Only in the last few years do we read criticism by classical analysts of the technique which Freud used, as it can be gathered from his own case histories and from reports by former patients. The criticism mentions “unanalytic” interventions and suggestive steps, many of which Freud described with his characteristic frankness. The Ratman case, for example, has been mentioned by critics because of Freud's frequent deviations from the prescribed passive attitude of the analyst. He occasionally provided food for the patient, gave him a book to read, gave him moral support and reassured him about the unblemished record of the Freud family when the patient expressed doubts about it.
These differences from classical technique are now designated in the literature as technical mistakes, which can be excused by the fact that Freud was the first analyst and, for lack of experience, was bound to make mistakes. Because of these unanalytic interventions, some critics feel the Ratman case is not an example of psychoanalysis, but a case of psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy. The differences between Freud's and today's classical techniques (“psychoanalysis as we understand it today,” in the words of Charles Brenner) supposedly indicate the progress of analytic skill since Freud. The students left the teacher behind. In this opinion, classical technique