Meetings of the New York Psychoanalytic Society

DISCUSSION. Dr. Ludwig Eidelberg agreed that resistance and defense are not synonymous; that the first occurs only in psychoanalytic therapy whereas the other exists independently. Approached economically, dynamically, or topographically, all require the same special clinical, technical considerations rather than concentration upon ego and one or another aggression. Explanations about the analyst's behavior should be given to the patient as, why, for example, the patient's questions are not answered. He should know that it is not because the analyst is lazy, angry, or asleep, but that answering will extend the process of analysis and make it costlier to the patient. Explanation that fears are related to repressed wishes can help overcome many resistances as—in the infantile unconscious—wishes and acts are undifferentiated. Since resistance is a product of the analytic situation, the human influence of the analyst in overcoming it was of course answered affirmatively by Freud. 'Acting in', as constrasted to 'acting out', was differentiated as action in the analytic situation. Dr. Nathaniel Ross amplified the necessity of differentiating resistances and defenses by giving two examples. In latent schizophrenia, defense mechanisms are not functioning adequately, permitting primary processes too easy of access to consciousness; and when a patient comes into treatment putting his worst foot forward, this is advance warning of inadequate defense mechanisms, making analysis difficult or impossible. Dr. Otto Sperling recalled that Freud was always very modest in his therapeutic expectations and that this was best suited to reduce resistances, since the more that is promised, the greater the resistances. He agreed that the patient be permitted to write, and added that at times it is better not to start with the basic rule but with taking a history. Free associations may also be a particular form of resistance. Dr. Jan Frank stated that resistance against the emer