Panel Discussion*

Dr. Sherman: I am not going to give any kind of thorough evaluation, but I will mention my reactions. I agree essentially with Dr. Laquercia's statement that he does not know what anaclitic means. I do not know what it means as far as treatment is concerned. I do understand what anaclitic means as far as the infant is concerned.

Dr. Laquercia gave the best description of infantile anaclitic behavior that I have heard, especially his beautiful example of the shining object. It is remarkable, and I agree that the infant's experience consists of many such examples which are irretrievable, and perhaps that is just as well, who knows? But how that is related to what actually happens in analysis and what anaclitic means and what the anaclitic countertransference is, if in fact it reproduces the infantile experience, I honestly feel is very much open to question. In a very general way it may be true. I'm questioning Dr. Spotnitz. I'm questioning anaclitic, whether anaclitic behavior actually occurs in treatment. That we reach a phase far along in treatment where the analyst feels an important change in how he feels toward the patient is undeniable. Whether or not this change truly refers to something anaclitic, I think is open to question. I cannot see where it necessarily does. It helps the analyst if he or she thinks it does; it helps give him or her

1. * Panel discussion based on the papers presented at the Center for Modern Psychoanalytic Studies Conference, Beyond the Anaclitic Countertransference: The Concept of Cure, on November 2, 1991.

Page 43

a format in which to respond to the patient, and that is soething the psychoanalyst always needs.

The person I disagree with most is my good frien Arnold Bernstein. He presents a very serious problem, ever-present, and that is the question as to whether feeling in itself is essential to cure. Dr. Bernstein's major point, as I understand it, is that the analyst's behavior is what is important, that it is his behavior that is effective in tr