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.
Szalita defines all re-analyses as continuations of analytic work that result in a "novel experience" for the individual. Whether with new analysts or old, as a result of lack of success in the first analysis or because of a new symptom altogether, the term re-analysis can be applied when competent analytic work is followed by this new work. Clinical material from fifty-three of the author's cases of re-analysis is reviewed, resulting in the establishment of seven major categories of reasons further treatment is sought: (1) no analysis took place; (2) the analysis was interrupted; (3) a clear incompatibility developed; (4) a negative therapeutic reaction ensued; (5) the patient complained that the analysis was insufficient; (6) the patient seemed to be addicted to analysis; (7) a new cycle of analysis was superimposed on one or more previous analyses. This last category, Szalita emphasizes, is "the group to which the term re-analysis really applies." The criteria for starting a second psychoanalysis are discussed as are a number of technical issues including treatment of the patient addicted to analysis, the role of free association, and the centrality of analysis of transference in second analyses. In Part 2 of the paper, Szalita briefly explores the theory and practice of interpretation.