Science, Systems and Psychoanalysis and Clinical Practice and the Architecture of the Mind. Two books by Robert Langs. London:  Karnac.

I knew from previous clinical experience something about Langs's emphasis, some might say over-emphasis, of the uses and abuses of the setting and the importance of the setting as a frame. It is true that Langs made an extremely important contribution to the study of the setting, and deviations from it, and the effects of these on the patient. He emphasises that what we might take for granted as therapists about ourselves and the frame within which we work, recreates the earliest experiences and dependencies, and that many of the patient's responses to us are in fact triggered by perceived changes or deviations from this setting. It is the therapist's job to listen to the patient, in particular his communications to us about our perceived or real failings. He postulates that most of the patient's communications are in fact coded responses, not only about their unconscious but about their deep perception of the therapist, and about alterations to the setting which resonate with previous experiences. These triggers, and the consequent adaptation to them in the patient, have to be decoded by the sensitive analyst aware that his own behaviour is being communicated back to him via the patient's coded response. It is working through these triggers and the patients’ adaptive responses that constitutes the real work of therapy, according to Langs. He has developed a whole theory around this postulate which is in part convincing. Having said this, I do feel that when one has read a book by Langs, and understood his basic call for a more sensitive approach to the patient's deep transference to the analyst, it is unnecessary to read any more.

As Bion has described, all truths and apparent understanding can be used to obscure deeper truths. Like many theorists, Langs seems to want to build a whole framework and theory about his notion. This tendency of course is not limited to Langs. Whatever theory we hold is limited. To assume that all the patient's responses are always respon