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.
There are several reasons why a discussion of the relationships between psychoanalysis and nonanalytic psychotherapy is pertinent at this time. The integration of analysis with clinical psychiatry (19) has made considerable progress in the last few years, and to all appearances will continue at an even greater rate in the immediate future. Psychoanalytically trained psychiatrists in large numbers now occupy positions of leadership in academic psychiatry. Although we are still a long way from accepting and fulfilling the demand that every psychiatrist receive personal analysis and analytic training (23), (25), the trend is in that direction. At the same time, the limited facilities for such training (18) and the greatly increased demand for psychotherapy make it clear that for a good many years to come a large proportion of neurotic patients in hospital and dispensary practice will be treated through nonanalytic methods by therapists without analytic training.
These facts pose a variety of problems to analysts and psychiatric educators alike. To mention but three of them: (1) Can the analyst contribute to the training of the nonanalytic therapist, and if so, how? (2) Can the analyst utilize his own training and knowledge in the personal application of nonanalytic and modified analytic techniques? (3) Is there, in the present apparently favorable position of psychoanalysis, a danger from the way in which the unquestionably desirable integration of psychoanalysis with psychiatry is going on that analysis will be so diluted as to lose much of its specific value as a research instrument? Except for stating my personal conviction, shared, as I know, by many others, that such a danger does in fact exist, I shall proceed to a brief consideration of the other two questions.