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.
There are not many works dealing with interpretation. The essential works are found in Freud, some in Klein, in the discussion of character analysis developed by Wilhelm Reich between 1925 and 1933, and in James Strachey's "The Nature of the Therapeutic Action of Psycho-Analysis," of 1934. Although these texts are already quite old, de M'Uzan does not feel that much has been added since. Their richness lends itself to metapsychological reflections on the formulation and acceptance of interpretations. We are all familiar with the response that some patients have to interpretations. There is the hysterical patient who cannot get enough of what is said, who always wants more words, for whom what the analyst said was a marvelous revelation, only it must be repeated, please. The obsessional patient, on the other hand, insists that the analyst talks too much and is interrupting his train of thought; anyway, he is not going to listen. Is an interpretation so dangerous? Perhaps, if the process is not controlled and mastered. One must know whether the economic and topographic aspects of an interpretation give it a chance to be mutative. This is rarely obvious in the course of treatment, where most interpretations are actually preparations