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.
The crisis of psychoanalytic theory, which was the central topic of Chap. 1 of the companion volume on the principles of psychoanalytic practice, has inevitably had some effects on psychoanalytic technique. In the last decade it has also become apparent that the perspectives of psychoanalytic therapy rooted in interpersonal theories have caused many concepts relevant to psychoanalytic practice to be reevaluated. It is now essential to distinguish between, on the one hand, the theory of the genesis or the explanation of psychic and psychosomatic illnesses and, on the other, the theory of therapeutic change and how it is brought about. Of course, all assumptions about structural changes depend on the observation of variations and alterations of symptoms.
This chapter's title, “Case Histories and Treatment Reports,” reflects the discord in Freud's work between the theory of genesis and that of change. Our reconsideration leads us in the first section of this chapter to reject the notion that he gave adequate scientific consideration to both poles of this discord in his case histories. It is necessary to reformulate his famous assertion about the existence of an inseparable bond between curing and research. A promising new source for re-grounding psychoanalytic therapy is for us to take the fact seriously that the theory of repeated traumatization has significance for the structuring of the therapeutic situation.
If we attempt to apply scientific criteria to the preparation of case histories and treatment reports, it is necessary for us to experiment with different schemes for reporting our work. For about three decades we, together with many other analysts, have striven toward the goal of reproducing the