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.
In one of his last strictly psychoanalytical works, Freud (1937) wrote that the constitutional strength of the instincts, and the consequent alteration of the ego, may render analysis interminable. Therefore, instead of asking how patients are cured through analysis, one should really inquire into the obstacles standing in the way of such a cure. But Die endliche und die unendliche Analyse should not be considered only from the point of view of technique: The German unendlich means “unending” or “infinite.”
In other words, because psychoanalytic exploration constitutes a never-ending process, the true nature of the encountered obstacles to cure is no less important to theory than to technique. However, despite the professed aim of psychoanalytic theory being to strive for truth, theorists certainly do so ambivalently. As knowledge of the whole truth would impose an unbearable burden on the therapist, many analysts advocate banning theory from the clinic in order to facilitate a neutral and empathic therapy. This measure could be interpreted as resistance—or defense—against theory; this interpretation would also explain why many authors omit mention of Freud's (1937) statement that “defensive mechanisms directed against former danger recur in the treatment as resistance against recovery” (p. 238).
With this in mind I shall now discuss some current approaches to the terms “defense” and “resistance.” In general, defense is mobilized against forbidden drives and instinctual derivatives, other motivational impulses, and painful affective states (not only anxiety); it is also mobilized intrasystemically, where one part of the ego opposes another.
Rather than listing the “mechanisms of defense,” one might