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.
All analysts recognize the need for deprivations in psychoanalysis; they would also agree in principle on the analyst's need to be human. The problem arises, however, in determining what is meant by humanness in the analytic situation and how does one reconcile it with the principle of deprivation [Greenson, 1965].
There have always been differences of opinion among analysts about the day-to-day management of what most consider the “gold” of transference analysis and the “baser metals” of other psychoanalytic procedures; but only since the 1950s has an extensive literature developed about the technical handling of various components of the analytic relationship (Shapiro, 1961; Greenson, 1965); and that literature is filled with controversy. I am referring here to discussions of two groups of concepts: On the one hand are “the real relationship,” “therapeutic alliance,” “working alliance,” and “empathic responsiveness,” all of which denote interpersonal processes, which some view as having a major influence on the course or outcome of analysis. On the other hand is a set of concepts that Freud originally introduced, which is sometimes counterpoised to the first group as providing