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 concepts on which analysis rests have not kept pace with advancing knowledge, and are in some respects unscientific. To be truly scientific, analytic concepts, like those in any other field, require agreement about fundamentals, well-defined methods of investigation and observation, frank sharing of observations with colleagues, and checking of the validity of new data with consequent integration into or rejection from the balance of the body of the science. The true scientific attitude excludes 'practical application' or 'usefulness' as goals, and seeks only extension of understanding. Szasz points out various unscientific aspects of analytic theory and practice. The word 'psychoanalysis' itself, for example, is used loosely to include situations differing considerably from Freud's original formulation, which corresponds closely to Eissler's 'primary model technique'. The ways in which rules define a situation, analytic or other, are illustrated by analogy with chess. The relatively rigid rules and organization of both these situations do not preclude infinite variation within the framework of those rules. There is mutual interaction between the participants; both situations require certain definable basic endowments or characteristics for the participants.
As with chess, the final goal of analysis is inherent in the technique of the treatment. Influencing the patient by treatment evolves into the goal of the patient's adopting a progressively more scientific attitude toward himself and his relations with others. This goal is inherent in the technique of analysis and is not a matter of choice for either analyst or patient, and the analytic process is intrinsically interminable. Various implications concerning training analysis as compared with therapeutic analysis are discussed.