Meetings of the New York Psychoanalytic Society

DISCUSSION: Dr. Norman Reider discussed three topics from the paper: 1, the value of the dialectical thesis-antithesis approach; 2, the elaboration of the seemingly paradoxical effect of interpretations, simultaneously contributing to insight and heightening of defense; 3, the humanness of the analyst. He questioned antithetical sets on the basis of their theoretical mien, highlighting the need for clinical corroboration to determine if they could contribute technical awareness. Speech as communication and concealment was suggested as the easiest antithesis to study. By becoming aware that the more specific speech is, the more its affective value is lost, one can be led to the defensive use of articulateness in speech and help the patient to talk plainly, simply, and even regressively. That interpretation contributes to insight and defense was similarly scrutinized for technical derivatives. Using clinical material, Dr. Reider concluded that there are technical cues which come from the recognition that both the act of interpretation and its content lead to insight and then to defense maneuvers. In considering the 'humanness' of the analyst versus the restriction of his work to interpretation, Dr. Reider rejected situations which hinder analytic work by gratifying transference demands. However, he pointed out that there are theoretically human manifestations in the analyst which are transference gratifications that facilitate or, at least, do not hinder analytic work. There is a paucity of intimate and detailed examination of clinical material on this subject in the literature. Dr. Reider believes that should such a study be undertaken, it would demonstrate the principle that when analytic work is facilitated, it can also give rise to defensive maneuvers.

Dr. Otto Sperling commented that the concept of ego boundaries is often taken too narrowly. For instance, in the act of empathy, one puts oneself in the place of a patient to see how a patient will react.