Meetings of the New York Psychoanalytic Society

DISCUSSION: Dr. Annie Reich commented on the observable readiness again to form a transference. Such transference willingness is observed in those who have suffered from severe neurosis; it remains as a residue of the deeply ingrained conflicts, and persists as a tendency toward pathologic object relationship, or fixations to infantile libidinal and aggressive aims. Perfect cures cannot be achieved. What we do achieve and demand in a successful analysis is a new capacity of the ego to deal with conflict situations. In subsequent analysis, these ego changes are observable.

Dr. Victor Rosen discussed the difficulties in the problem of validation. He agreed that focus on the transference was the logical approach. He questioned whether we can regard the patient's reaction to the interviewer as a transference neurosis, particularly since the frequency and length of contact that is implicit in the analytic procedure could not be duplicated in the follow-up interviews. He suggested that the transference phenomena observed might be the result of the analysis, noting that there is a greater readiness for such reactions once they have been mobilized in full force by analysis. Also there is greater readiness by analysts to observe these reactions.

Dr. Mortimer Ostow asked why the analysis could not have been assessed by the patient's analyst, thus avoiding the introduction of new unknowns. This, he believed, would have afforded more information regarding results and a better estimate of the patient's future.

Dr. Max Schur remarked that organic illnesses may cause a reactivation of neurotic symptoms. He wondered what the meaning of the study must have been for the patient, since it occurred in the midst of her concern about an organic illness. He questioned whether this had influenced the observable transference phenomena.

Dr. Rudolph Loewenstein observed that it is difficult to correlate an immediate transference reaction with the severity of a neurosis. A considerabl