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.
In his 1934 article, "The Nature of the Therapeutic Action of Psycho-Analysis," Strachey noted the paucity of attention that the therapeutic process per se has received from theoreticians; Adler feels that Strachey's complaints are still appropriate, even though technique receives more attention currently. While Strachey's article is important, psychoanalysis has made many advances since 1934. Adler examines Strachey's view that the analyst serves as a milder, more gentle superego to help reduce the patient's anxiety over instinctual conflicts. In Strachey's view, therapeutic change came about through a change in the patient's superego, from which other changes in the patient's psychological makeup automatically followed. He emphasized guilt and anxiety as most strongly indicating the need for therapy; therapeutic change develops from the dynamically effective interpretation of the transference, which reproduces the history of the instincts and their vicissitudes. Many authors have helped us understand the psychoanalytic process; the analytic relationship has been discussed in terms of the mother-child model, the identification of the analyst with the mother of separation, and the "holding function" of the analyst. Modell speaks of the "cocoon-transference." The author reviews these several contributions to theory and therapy. The general shift seems to be away from what the analyst says, and more toward what he is. Change is not seen as coming about through interpretation of the transference, and the analyst is not solely a more kindly superego figure. The object relations theorists view the therapeutic relation as a complementary regression in which the therapist participates, and which emphasizes what has come to be known as the holding function of the analyst. Adler