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.
The impact of psychoanalytic theories on analytic understanding and technique is most evident in comparative responses to a detailed clinical study. Each discussant has assessed and organized the clinical material from his/her vantage point. Espousing and proving one's particular constructions resulted in very disparate readings of the patient's experience and of the analyst's premises and subjective experiences. Clearly, with the plurality of psychoanalytic theories differences abound.
For purposes of comparing and contrasting the various clinical approaches to the material I will address the premises of the discussants and assess, from my perspective, their constructions of the clinical material. In the comparison I will also further elucidate my understanding and approach to the clinical experience. Space constrictions require me to focus succinctly on specific highlights of each discussion.
First, I will schematically present the model of therapeutic action fundamental to my understanding and technique. Because the functions of the transference dimension of idealization were addressed and understood so differently by the discussants, I will compare the various approaches to idealization under that heading. And I will discuss under a separate heading my “nonstandard” response in the “Cadillac” incident because it elicited strong reactions.
My general orientation within psychoanalysis is self psychological. However, no orientation is uniform, and wide divergences exist among those who claim a similar orientation. Even wider