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.
A ten-year-old severely disturbed schizophrenic boy reacted to an incomplete interpretation by showing a change in the object of his aggression. In response to previous interpretations, the patient had destroyed crayons or toys by chewing or breaking them. When the incomplete interpretation was made, the boy went to the toilet, urinated in the sink, mixed the urine with soap, drank of it, and then spat it out, attacking the analyst. The analyst who had been attacked before by the patient, this time became annoyed and counterattacked. The author feels that his anger and the patient's behavior could have been avoided if his interpretation had included the meaning of the patient's previous behavior and had expressed the patient's feeling of abandonment and basic depression. 'My two previous interpretations calmed the patient's persecutory and depressive anxieties, and he was therefore able to attack again … he broke a toy … but in doing so his guilt over his sadistic impulses against mother's abdomen and against his sister overwhelmed him… My incomplete interpretation did not calm his anxieties and he therefore violently projected inside of me his urine filled with all the hostile contents and the destroyed parts of the object.' The author concludes that '… the usefulness of a complete interpretation, especially in such disturbed cases, is precisely that it is accepted as a substitute for a good libidinal object, a good breast, which will permit a synthesis of the ego and protect against threatened collapse of the ego'.