Should Analytic Patients Be “Created”? Reflections on Arnold Rothstein's Psychoanalytic Technique and the Creation of Analytic Patients

The five points of Arnold Rothstein's interesting monograph are each discussed and critiqued in this article. In particular, Rothstein is commended for his commitment to expanding the availability of an intensive, psychoanalytic treatment for a broad spectrum of patients who may often be very difficult to engage. Rothstein also accounts for difficulties in engaging analytic patients from obstacles in the attitudes of analysts such as a latent lack of conviction about the efficacy of psychoanalysis and from overly restricted stereotypes about the spectrum of appropriate patients. He recommends a flexibility of technique and accommodation to the needs of patients with which this author agrees.

Others of Rothstein's observations and recommendations seem more problematic. Specifically, issue is taken with his suggestion that analysts attempt to provide a trial of psychoanalysis for all nonpsychotic patients and to begin on a

less intensive basis only within the frame of interpreting prospective patients' objections as a resistance. This author also disagrees with Rothstein's interpretation that patients resist the offer of a psychoanalysis out of a self-defeating masochistic enactment that needs interpretation. Case examples are provided that belie this overly generalized interpretation. Additionally, this author critiques the metapsychological assumptions underlying this particular mode of interpreting a reluctance to begin psychoanalysis.

While commending Rothstein's therapeutic goals and recommended flexibility of technique, this author would also stress a fundamental concern about the patient's conscious and unconscious experience of the analyst's agenda. In other words, rather than working toward the analyst's goal of establishing a psychoanalytic situation, emphasis is placed instead on the basic right of patients to proceed in a manner that respects their sovereignty over how intensively they may choose to work. Therefore, in contradistinction to Rothstein's suggestions, it is recommended that the analyst's primary focus should be to provide an availability to work on the patient's conflicts and developmental needs with a respect for the timing of their emergence and expression within a treatment frame that invites but does not prematurely elicit and confront. By proceeding in this way a patient's salient dynamics will be allowed to emerge “organically” instead of being hastened prematurely in reaction to the analyst's insistence on the rightness of a particular schedule or manner of proceeding. This author believes that with this approach more, rather than fewer, patients will be able to accept the recommendation of an intensive psychoanalytic treatment.