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. Benjamin Rubinstein pointed out that objectification may be biased or unbiased. Thus cognition, which is contingent on objectification, does not preclude its being emotionally charged in the sense of appearing as something like a revelation or a blow to one's self-esteem. Consciousness, as well as objectification and insight, is achieved in the analytic situation mainly through free association and interpretation. When the process grinds to a halt or is in danger of faltering, any device that brings about a rejuvenation is welcome. Discussing Dr. Stern's results, Dr. Rubinstein felt the technique warranted further study, preferably under controlled conditions and with a sufficient number of analysts participating.
Dr. Hartvig Dahl emphasized that this technique was not a substitute therapy but that the playback enhanced the analytic procedure. However, he felt the paper suffered from a failure to share clinical vignettes. He quoted Philip Holzman who wrote that 'as a minimum requirement those who use the method [of playback] should specify precisely the ways in which it has been used, on which patient, and by what therapist. Before and after treatment, assessments by objective evaluations would need to be taken. Appropriate control or comparison groups would be necessary for definite evaluation.' Referring to Dr. Stern's point that maintaining confidentiality was necessary to the analytic process, Dr. Dahl said that an analytic process could go on in the absence of