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.
Until fairly recently, theoretical and clinical distinctions in psychoanalysis were hard-edged and uncompromising. This conference represents a noteworthy ecumenical effort, an attempt to arrive at some consensus among divergent groups. Unfortunately, ecumenicism, however much to be desired, entails its own liabilities. First, there is a certain confusion of tongues. Psychoanalysts use language which is highly loaded with implied meanings. Much as “the Flag” carries powerful emotional and contextual values, “resistance,” “transference,” “drive” are all terms that accrue their meaning from a particular theoretical stance and, moreover, may have a different meaning and set of referents for someone holding another metapsychological position.
Not only is there a confusion of semantics, but different analysts are, figuratively speaking, seeing different patients; that is, the same patient will look different from different perspectives. This “preconfiguration” as Heidegger called it, was strikingly evident in the response of the panel to the clinical material presented. Rather than arriving at different formulations based on the material presented, each wanted new information, in essence, another view of the patient.
Analysts collect different data, hear them selectively, and see in