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.
Dr. Nacht emphasizes the differences rather than the similarities between didactic and therapeutic analysis, from the point of view of the patient as well as of the analyst. The candidate has more theoretical knowledge, comes of his own volition, chooses his analyst for professional reasons as well as for personal ones, and expects to continue a social and professional relationship with his analyst after completion of the treatment. The analyst is therefore not a neutral figure but one endowed with many realistic attributes. This modifies the transference and strengthens the defenses. Intellectualization is made easy. Furthermore there is a conscious wish in the candidate to identify himself with the analyst; in the usual patient this wish is unconscious. In a didactic analysis the candidate cannot flee from the analysis as readily, and the dependence on the analyst is therefore realistic and not imaginary as in a therapeutic analysis. This makes it necessary to handle transference in a much more subtle way in order to be effective. The author also discusses the dangers of countertransference, in particular the omnipotent fantasies of the analyst. In conclusion he points out that the difference between the two situations requires a difference in technique. Didactic analysis is easier if some neurotic symptoms are present. A so-called normal person may be a less suitable candidate.
Dr. Nacht ends by suggesting two measures that minimize the difficulties of a training analysis. Graduation from an institute should be dependent upon the control analysts, rather than the training analyst, and a second analysis should be required after the candidate has become a member of the society.