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 main difficulty to me in writing this contribution to the discussion was to decide whether it was more important to bring forward details connected with the application of technique which I consider to be fundamental or whether it was better to concentrate on points of more general technical significance.
I came to the conclusion that my first task was to define what I considered the attitude of the analyst should be to psychoanalysis, as this attitude must actually determine the effect of the technique however that technique is applied. Hence I will say that no analytical technique is sound however applied if the analyst regards it as the only method of saving the patient and as an exact method depending on exactitude for its success.
In training we aim at preparing the Candidate to be able to observe and judge objectively, and the ideal is that they should observe with their own eyes eventually and not only through those of their analyst or control analysts.
It is obvious that what an individual analyst considers to be fundamental when the application of technique is considered must vary, with the type of case which is thought to be suitable for treatment. If treatment is to be confined to psycho-neurotics and people with slight character difficulties a technique can be applied with more rigidity and exactitude than if the treatment of borderline cases and psychopaths is undertaken. It may be obvious that these cases cannot be cured but they may be helped, kept out of asylums, and prevented from committing suicide and often obtain a limited adaptation which is compatible with relative health and happiness. The treatment is therefore justified. The first interview in my