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.
The author notes that changes in psychoanalytic theory are founded upon new clinical experiences. He raises questions about the reciprocal relationship—that is, whether advances in theory have led to advances in clinical practice and technique—and doubts its existence. He feels that current psychoanalytic theory is minimally related to practice, and that few technical guides may be deduced from it. He attributes the separation of theory and practice to several factors. There is a disparity between the abstract language of theory and the ordinary, everyday language of personal analysis and supervision. There continues to be an insistence that, no matter what the clinical and theoretical findings, psychoanalysis as treatment remains the same. And there is continued emphasis in our theory on patients less severely regressed than are many of the patients treated by psychoanalysis today. Witenberg lists several features which he feels should characterize a modern clinical theory. It should be more concerned with how patients are than with how they came to be that way; it should account for the fact that explaining people is not the same as helping them; it should consider countertransference on an equal basis with transference; and it should say as much about the psychology and behavior of the