Chapter 16. The Classical Technique and its Limitations

Some analysts use the ‘classical’ language which goes back to Freud and which was based, in the first instance, on experiences belonging to the Oedipal level; these experiences were then expressed in a slightly modified common adult language. ‘Pre-genital’ experiences are by no means neglected or disregarded by these analysts but they are expressed in the same adult language, that is, they are raised to the Oedipal level.

Expressed in another way, these analysts may try to restrict their responses to the regression — foremost among them their interpretations — to those found so reliable when dealing with conflicts at the Oedipal level, hoping that by this cautious technique the patient will be pulled out of his regression and attracted again by the remnants of his interests that he had previously had, in triangular relationships of real life, in the various oral, anal, genital forms of sexuality, and so forth. What is overlooked by these cautious analysts is that, using this technique, they may force the patient either to remain at the Oedipal level during the whole of the treatment, or to return there speedily after very brief regressions into the other areas of the mind. In this technique most of the phenomena belonging to the area of the basic fault are possibly interpreted as symptoms of castration complex or penis envy. These interpretations will be correct to the extent to which they bring to light one of the over-determining factors but, since they neglect all those originating from the basic fault itself, in some cases they must prove therapeutically unhelpful. True, these therapists can achieve commendable results, but only with patients who have been carefully selected.

An excellent description of the possible variations inherent in the ‘classical’ psychoanalytical technique was given by R. Loewenstein at the 20th International Psycho-Analytic Congress in Paris (1958). A loyal adherent to the cause of ‘classical technique’, he skilfully