Epilogue

In reviewing our contributions, it is possible to focus either on the common ground or on the areas of diversity. Both perspectives are important. Looking for areas of agreement will disclose central components in the therapeutic process, whereas underscoring diversity will shed light on new avenues for exploration and further elaboration.

Michels (1985), in discussing the therapeutic action of psychoanalysis, delineates three primary themes that have been put forward to account for the therapeutic efficacy of psychoanalysis. In underscoring these components, he is careful to emphasize that most psychoanalytic theoreticians include all these elements in their view of the therapeutic process, but they emphasize one or another of them. The first of these themes is the attainment of insight—the analysand discovers something new about himself and/or sees what is old in a new way. This category includes Freud's therapeutic goal of making conscious that which is unconscious, efforts at reconstructing pathogenic forces, and the development of a meaningful life narrative. Theoreticians partial to this school of thought see enhancing self-knowledge as critical in producing therapeutic change. The second theme focuses on the experience of an intense emotional encounter. In the psychoanalytic arena this is not simply an issue of catharsis, but rather a gradually evolving affective experience that is felt to be critical in producing change. Finally is the emphasis on an interpersonal experience. The relationship between analysand and analyst is considered the central and dominant curative component.

Again, it is important to emphasize that most theories of cure would include all three of these elements. However, there is considerable debate as to which dominates and which remain important background factors in accounting for therapeutic efficacy.

Using this simplified schema, the common ground of the presentations is that our contributors would certainly include all thr