In psychoanalytical theory, the immediate future of the analysand has not been in the focus of interest. However, there is a change in the basic assumptions concerning the psychoanalytic process. Change is no longer seen as an inevitable automatic effect of insight into the unconscious. This is especially pertinent in the case of defect pathology. The author asks whether this altered view of the process will be followed by a change in technique. The question is: must change occasionally be stimulated by inspiration, suggestions and assessments from the analyst. While interpretation of the unconscious is still the major focus of analysis, some consideration of the next step of the analysand may also be part of our concern.