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.
Dr. eagle has clearly demonstrated the way a skilled psychoanalyst with a solid theoretical orientation can bring new understanding to a clinical presentation. What is rare is the analyst's doing this in relation to his or her own case material. The two analyses of S, unlike its prototype, Kohut's “The two analyses of Mr. Z,” reanalyze the data rather than the patient. In a sense Eagle served as the discussant of his own paper. He adds a relational perspective to his original orthodox view. He then attempts to fit the outcome into this new model.
As the discussant, he has followed the tradition of our field and highlighted what has been overlooked by the “naive” presenter. By being such an astute discussant, Eagle has focused on an array of important issues about both the patient and the nature of psychoanalytic cure. In his clinical presentation, Eagle has elucidated the intricate and often inexplicable combination of variables that contribute to a patient's achieving greater satisfaction in living.
Eagle has empathized, offered advice, interpreted, provided a “corrective emotional experience,” created a benign and caring environment, participated in the enactment of an array of internal scenarios, and offered an intellectual structure by which S can understand her past and present experience.
We are confronted with many more questions than answers. Given the complexity of what has transpired, what facets of the treatment were central in bringing about the alleviation of symptoms? Is this a real cure or a transference cure? Does it matter? Have the positive therapeutic results been brought about by Eagle's neutrality or by his seductiveness? Did