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.
Even in Freud's times the discourse of the psychoanalytic community of interpreters and therapists was taken over by forms of thought more appropriate to a religious community (canonization of the correct doctrine, banishment of heterodox or apparently heterodox views, with subsequent splinter groups and section formation). Cremerius demonstrates this with the example of the official theory of psychoanalytic technique which is based on Freud's writings in the years 1912-1915—a scientific stylization of his own "dissident" therapeutic technique. The dogmatization of the "mirror" technique has since prevented the moderation of the relevant rules in the direction of a more patient-centered, situation-specific, and flexible technique such as would be consistent with a dyadic psychology. There has of course been a greater de facto pluralism taking hold in the last forty years within the international psychoanalytic community, with only local dogmatisms surviving. Liberalization of psychoanalytic "essentials" has resulted in a high degree of tolerance. There is no greater consensus today in matters of psychosexual development than there is in questions of metapsychology or technique.