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.
Our contributors have provided us with a very full discussion of the questions “What is interpretation?” and “What are its consequences?”. Every paper reflects clinical interest and experience on the author's part; there is no empty theorizing disconnected from observations made in the treatment situation. These are all clinical analysts, trying to understand how therapy really works. Yet, despite this important common ground, there is a striking lack of consensus with respect to the answers given to the questions posed.
The lack of agreement testifies to the fact that psychoanalytic science is still in an early stage of development. We struggle to realiably describe even the most fundamental aspects of an analyst's activity. No surprise, then, that the mechanism of action of analytic treatment and criteria for assessing effective analytic technique remain elusive for the moment.
Perhaps the term interpretation itself has become something of a burden. It certainly originated in a conception of the analytic enterprise that is now obsolete — one that viewed the analyst as a decoder of encrypted messages from the unconscious — and brings with it a confusing legacy. Intervention, used by most non-English-speaking analysts, seems much more to the point.
No matter what words we choose, however, we need to address certain ambiguities that limit our understanding of the analyst's activity and its role in the analytic process. The familiar question of whether suggestion is an aspect of analytic technique, mentioned in the prologue, is one issue. The subjectivity of the