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. Milton Horowitz emphasized that Dr. Jacobs' ideas were based on a conscious option for the use of these bodily responses as signals for self-analysis, which might or might not be employed interpretively. He felt that the paper had great technical value in its suggestion that the analyst's resonance in mirrored response should provide the patient with the missing verbalization often expressed in acting out. He cautioned, however, that since many of these patients long for intuitive nonverbal understanding, intervention of this sort might promote a magical transference gratification. Furthermore, the use of 'body associations' on the part of the analyst might lend itself to certain narcissistic fantasies, not unlike countertransference phenomena in hypnotic states.
Dr. Eleanor Galenson felt that although the patients' associations seemed to be related to the Oedipal phase, they served as screen memories for earlier bodily experiences which provoked a similar pregenital response in the analyst. She hypothesized that the 'analyst reproduces the maternal portion of the earlier reciprocal interaction—those early regulatory mechanisms which have been described by Scheflin as a process not unlike