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.
DISCUSSION: Dr. Max Schur felt that Dr. Eisnitz challenged child analysts to answer many questions. Why is reconstruction of childhood events in the analysis of adults not complete? Why is it so difficult to make certain predictions of future pathology? Why are there not more contributions toward theory of neurosogenesis? What is the relative importance of preoedipal problems and Oedipal conflicts for symptom formation? Dr. Schur considers that one of the major contributions of child analysis was in the area of normal and abnormal development and of individual functions in interaction with the environment. He expressed the hope that the presentation of the other panel members would answer some of these questions.
Dr. Neubauer mentioned other questions to ask about early development, such as the spontaneous capacity of some children to move toward conflict solution and factors involved in secondary autonomy and other ego functions. He felt that child analysis has influenced adult analysis in the assessment of the neurotic conflict. This influence in turn has affected selection for analyzability.
Dr. Judith Kestenberg outlined the successive contributions of child analysis which had a profound effect on theory and technique in adult analyses. 1. Latency analysis, from which a classification of defense mechanisms was derived, set a trend for ego analysis and extended its scope through the understanding of precursors of defenses. 2. Analysis of preschool children directed attention to precursors of the superego and their role in the analysis of adults. 3. The combination of analyzing and observing children yielded new knowledge about adaptive functions, stages of object relationships, forms of separation anxiety, and their