Discussion: What is the Theoretical Yield in Studying the Psychoanalyst's Intentions?

The purpose of bringing together the present panel was to begin to approach the question of how analytic clinicians would elaborate a converging impression from the contemporary literature that the overarching intentions of practicing psychoanalysts are more concordant than the diverse psychoanalytic theories with which these intentions are associated; and, in light of not only analysts' pluralistic theoretical orientations but also analysts' ubiquitous differences in therapeutic style, in what manner these intentions are more consistent than might be suggested by the extensive array of techniques generated in response to patients' varied and continuously changing developmental/clinical needs and the technical challenges these entail over the course of treatment. Relative consistency in the hierarchy of analysts' intentions, in turn, would support the accretion of a body of teaching and practice which aims to give a full and flexible account of how analyst's function, notwithstanding the concurrent recognition in the literature that the extent of deliberate control which is possible over what we do as analysts is less than certain. While Friedman (2008) voices the impression that “we will never have either a full or agreed-upon account of even the commonest features of specifically psychoanalytic treatment, much less a final description of an actual treatment encounter,” he insists nevertheless that “we must keep trying to capture the specialness of analytic treatment or else we will give up all claim to a procedure” (p. 437).