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 his chapter Jule Miller tackles a rather difficult issue with a mix of thoughtfulness, candor, and awareness of complexities that is both stimulating and satisfying.
The title of the chapter, “Can Psychotherapy Substitute for Psychoanalysis,” is instantly alerting, posing an unexpected question about the value of the two modalities with the use of the surprise word “substitute.” Miller does not ask how psychotherapy and psychoanalysis are similar or how they differ, or when one can be used to greater advantage; rather he asks, in effect, whether psychoanalysis is replaceable by psychotherapy. My “mind-jerk” reaction to the title, the word, the question, was a mix of curiosity and distress. First of all, “substitute”–was it really the appropriate word? If so, in how large a sense was it meant? And psychotherapy—how was it to be defined? And what's more, how was psychoanalysis to be defined?
Of course, I had given some thought to the general issue any number of times before but from a different perspective: Namely, when is psychotherapy indicated and when is psychoanalysis indicated?—not in terms of practicality but in a clinically relevant sense. Reading further, it became clear that Miller had chosen his words