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.
While Freud was often ambivalent about the clinical aspects of psychoanalysis,he remained enamored of his theory of the mind and elaborated it over the entire course of his life. Occasionally, an analyst identified himself or herself as making major additions or alternatives to Freud’s original definition, leading to separate schools of psychoanalysis. Technique, on the other hand, was often assumed to remain the same with the analyst’s role severely constricted with regard to interactive warmth and caring. Why is this? The answer lies in the perception that a treatment depending significantly on the personality and life experience of the analyst cannot be generalized but would be judged as the influence of a powerful analyst acting according to his or her individuality. Who benefits from such a distancing stance on the analyst’s part? Certainly not the patient, but definitely not the analyst. For analysts, the need to have psychoanalysis survive as a therapy that can compete as the one therapy based upon an intimate and deep experience of mutual understanding, requires that it radically change from the vision of its founder, brilliant and creative as it was when he became the first psychoanalyst and the father of psychoanalysis.