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.
When I considered the contributions of the original four panelists, I was struck by two factors. There was at once a remarkable diversity in the way four exceptionally competent psychoanalysts understood the same clinical data, while simultaneously these clinicians selected identical elements in that diverse material as deserving of their attention, demonstrating that psychoanalysts of varying theoretical persuasions think more alike than not regarding what is significant in the clinical process. In the other discussants I found the same factors operative: the diagnosis and dynamic understanding of the case were based on the theoretical model espoused.
The elements common to all four contributions in the original panel were: the proclivity of each analyst to provide a diagnosis and dynamic understanding for Silverman's patient most consistent with, best explained by, and even best treated by, his own particular frame of reference; to understand the impasse in the analysis also in terms of that framework; and to focus on the revelation of Miss K.'s masturbation fantasy as a most significant event in the clinical material provided. In the discussion of the remarks of the four additional commentators, this approach, happily enough, appears as pertinent to the newer contributions as it was to the old.
In terms of diagnosis of Silverman's patient, then, Levenson asserts that Silverman's assessment of the patient as presented in the clinical material provided is inadequate, that Miss K. remains for