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.
22nd January 1953.
Dear Dr. Rosenfeld:
I feel like writing a letter about last night's meeting1 for you to read at your leisure as there is nothing important or urgent in it.
Firstly, I think that the idea of discussing published papers is a good one. I am glad you have set the fashion. The meeting, however, seemed to me to be a dull one and I suppose the reason lies with all of us, myself included.
I have tried to think out what was the matter and I think that
one reason is that we did not know what we were discussing. Were we discussing your main thesis, which is, as I understand it, that psycho-analysis can be applied to psychotics, that is to say, work by use of the transference neurosis or psychosis. Or were we discussing the understanding of schizophrenia?
I found, talking to people afterwards, that no-one knew the subject of the discussion and that there was a general bewilderment. Perhaps you will agree with this and it is very easy to look back afterwards.
In regard to the first point, I feel that your two papers have a great deal of merit, but there is of course not much point in getting up and saying this.
In regard to the second point, I tried to say that I fully support the idea that psycho-analysis of psychotics can be done. This thesis still needs working out, however, and I do not consider that you have got very far with working it out, especially in view of the fact that you slur over the management problems. I know of one analyst who knew your patient and who said that the whole work of the management was a very specialised business and that as far as could be seen the bit of work which you did by analysis made no appreciable difference to the patient. I can well believe this to be true. If you would acknowledge it I would support your idea that the work you did is valid as a research and interesting enough to report.
In regard to the third point, I find myself in quite violent disagreement with the general tendency of your paper. I think that the work of