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. Solnit's assertion that my “observations and formulations seem to have a serious internal inconsistency” puzzled me. I did not advocate that the “working through” of the transference-neurosis be replaced by conjoint interviews. I study, interpret and “work through” the transference-neurosis of my patients from the beginning and throughout the course of their treatment. The most conscientious working through often fails to resolve the transference-neurosis. In such situations and in the finishing phase of the treatment, conjoint sessions have proven most useful.
I also do not share Dr. Solnit's concern that this technique confuses and distorts “the focus and influence of analytic treatment on autoplastic and alloplastic processes.” Long ago I lost my belief in the immaculate separation of these categories. In his brilliant “Notes on the Reality Principle” Heinz Hartmann exposited the intricacies of this problem better than I myself could attempt.
Dr. Jackson's generous encouragement is much appreciated. I am sorry that I gave the impression of assuming that Freud would have eventually become a family therapist. Nothing could be further from my mind. But I did wish to point out that Freud—contrary to some latter-day analysts—did not shun a meeting with the relatives when the occasion arose.
Though Dr. Rodgers structures his experiences in somewhat different ways they seem to resemble in essential aspects the experiences of the panelists.
Dr. Whitaker's spirited reply reveals that he is quite at home with analytic terms. I understand his concern that the analyst may appear to the spouse as a protective and interfering
“mother-in-law.” In actual experience I have found that by carefully posting myself in equal distance to both participants in the conjoint session I am soon perceived as doctor of both partners. The experience of the past analysis is now used for the understanding and in the interest of both spouses and their mutual transactions.
The patient in Case 2 d