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 other chapters of this section Stolorow and Wolf consider the role of interpretation in therapeutic change. Both follow a similar expository path. Each provides a definition of interpretation, describes its role in the therapeutic process, compares its role with that of other elements in the therapeutic situation, and attempts to delineate the factors he considers essential to the curative process. In addition, as a subsidiary topic, both comment on the relation of theory to observation and understanding.
Unfortunately, I cannot do justice here to the topic or to the many ideas presented by Stolorow and Wolf. I will, therefore, not note the many points on which I agree but, rather, in the hope of stimulating further thought, will focus on those with which I disagree. I will select salient topics, compare the views of Wolf and Stolorow, and offer some comments of my own.
Stolorow begins by saying that a psychoanalytic interpretation is “an act of illuminating personal meaning.” He makes it clear that he, at least theoretically, differentiates interpretation from other, noninter-pretive, elements within the therapeutic situation. Wolf, on the other hand, uses a much broader definition of interpretation, one that includes not only verbal statements but all intentional activities intended to bring about a modification of the analysand's psyche.