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.
At a time when psychoanalysis is being accused of being outmoded and when biological and social epidemiological methods predominate in the general psychiatric community, The Talking Cure by Joseph
D. Lichtenberg provides a reminder of the psychological roots of human behavior. This volume undertakes two formidable tasks: defining psychoanalytic goals and demonstrating the therapeutic process as it unfolds.
Essentially, it is written for the laity. In a straightforward manner, the reader is taken through the choice of an analyst, evaluation of his/her credentials, and the nature of the initial consultations. As the author discusses the beginning of an analysis (the analytic contract and the opening phase having been described), he presents some well-chosen vignettes which serve to illustrate the basic concepts of psychoanalysis. Lichtenberg's style is warm and empathic as he delineates the process.
Other books written by analysts for the laity have often stressed or overstressed the importance of analytic insight. The dramatic quality of a well-timed interpretation captures the imagination of the reader, who may erroneously feel that insight and cure are synonymous. Lichtenberg, however, treats insight as a necessary but not sufficient factor for producing structural change. Thus, in his chapter, "Learning How the Mind Works," he discusses such diverse topics as "defenses," "themes," "patterns," and "transference." In the early chapters, he stresses that it is the therapeutic alliance which is of primary importance in analysis.
Perhaps the most difficult period of analysis is the middle phase, with its process of working through. This is the process which those authors who stress the importance of insight avoid, but Lichtenberg addresses it meaningfully. This section, at first reading, lacks the clarity of the earlier chapters, but this is not necessarily the fault of the author. It rather underscores the burden of trying to explain something that may have