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.
In one of his last papers, Freud (4) wrote that in his opinion the ways in which psychoanalytic technique achieves its aims are sufficiently elucidated; therefore, one ought rather ask what obstacles this therapy encounters. However, in the analytic literature many issues, not only about the practice but also about the theory of technique, remain controversial. We shall discuss what these variations mean, and to which differences in the theoretical or practical approach we can trace them.
Progress in the development of analysis is no doubt mostly based on clinical discoveries; however, now that analysis has come of age, we realize more clearly also the promoting and interdependent roles of both technique and theory. Retrospectively, we may say that on different levels of its development, analytic technique was used in different ways, not only for the immediate therapeutic aims, but also in determining the possible scope of observation—of fact finding in general. Theoretical concepts helped at various stages and in various ways to facilitate the organization of the data observed (actually also to seeing the facts), and to advance the exactness and effectiveness of technique. In the course of its growth, an integration—at times more, at times less complete—developed among the clinical, technical, and theoretical elements into a state of reciprocal influence. Faulty theoretical concepts and incomplete insight frequently lead to faulty technique, and there are many examples of adherence to technical mistakes which leads to distortions and misinterpretation of facts.
As to the relation of technique and theory, whenever a lack of integration occurs, both aspects are likely to suffer. A gradual separation of theory and technique, commended by many,