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. Rogawski's observations and formulations seem to have a serious internal inconsistency which Dr. Gabe alludes to in his discussion. This inconsistency is most clearly indicated in the assumption that the patient can continue to use his analytic understanding and thinking after the analysis is terminated; at the same time it is assumed that the terminal phase of the analysis should be conducted in a manner which prevents the patient from working through the transference-neurosis.
It is my impression that Dr. Rogawski's conduct of conjoint interviews with his patient and the patient's spouse constrains and distorts the transference process. This constriction and distortion is such to make it almost impossible for the patient to work through the transference-neurosis and to analyze those reactions evoked in the terminal phase of an analysis.
There are many other questions raised by this mixture of analytic treatment and conjoint therapy which time does not permit me to discuss fully. Such a mixture confuses and/or distorts: (1) The focus and influence of analytic treatment on autoplastic and alloplastic processes; on external reality and intrapsychic (inner) reality; (2) The patient's ability to use the working through processes characteristic of Freudian psychoanalysis; (3) The characteristics and findings of conjoint therapy (see Dr. Briehl's remark); (4) Who is the patient? (5) The degree of the patient's effective self-understanding as measured against the therapist's zeal.