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.
Two approaches in the analysis of obsessive humming are contrasted. The approach by Juni is elaborated as stressing characterology and dedicated to the pursuit of historical antecedents of symbolisms, while de Chumaceiro is seen as adopting a stance which views transference as all-encompassing. Juni's approach is shown to be derived from a general appreciation of obsession as a character bordering dynamically on regressive processes which threaten cognition and emotional equilibrium. Intrinsic contributions of defensive styles are stressed in the humming neurosis. The two theoretical vantage points are juxtaposed with respect to their philosophical interpretations of the goals of the psychoanalytic process.
The suggestions offered in Díaz de Chumaceiro's paper are mosdy viable and plausible. Some, nonetheless, do fall short in the conceptual domain while others are theoretically sound but are not consistent with the analytic material and data of the case presentation. Doubtless, Diaz de Chumaceiro is at a disadvantage having only the published paper as a reference. This evaluation of her comments is explicitly limited to the case study as well, elucidating and expanding the premises and theoretical assumptions at the foundation of the original presentation.
Both Díaz de Chumaceiro and Juni (1987) seem to strive toward an objective historical truth in analytic work, in contrast to relative states of truthfulness buffered by the recollective process. The latter notion, as an option to reductionism, is quite eloquently posited as a major foundation of analytic truisms (Spence, 1982). However, Juni's position is more conservative than his critic's in that his quest is for past events which are deduced to have occurred; he then proceeds to subject these events to the analytic test. More