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.
13th April 1954.
My dear Scott:
I am very happy to have your comments on my Regression paper1 and the discussion so that I can study them. So far I have only read them through once or twice and I find a great deal to think about. At the present minute I would like to make one or two comments.
In regard to the point that you make about regression as the reverse of a process you will have noticed that before I read the paper I altered the word “process” to “progress.” This alters your criticism, I think. There is progress and regression and as I tried to point out in my paper, for regression there has to be a rather complicated ego organisation. I suggest that the word reversal is not so bad when applied to the word progress, whereas I agree that it is not sensible when applied to the word process.
I would agree to use your words “Regression is an attempt to use previous types of behaviour normal or abnormal as a defence against present conflict” only there is so much more to be said that needs saying. It seems to me that we really agree on this point since my alteration meets your statement that reversal should be kept for attempts on the part of the patient to reverse something, for instance, growth. This is exactly what I mean.