The psychoanalytic process and the development of insight in child analysis: a case study

This paper describes a segment of the analysis of an aggressive latency-age child. The data demonstrate the relationship between the establishment of a psychoanalytic process (the analysis of transference, defense, and resistance), the development and nature of insight in the child, and the resulting therapeutic change. Examination of the process shows that the therapeutic gains were a result of insights acquired by the child, particularly his awareness of painful affects that had been warded off. This case is compared with Bornstein's treatment of a phobic child who manifested severely "out-of-control" behavior.     

Turning aggression on the self: a study of psychoanalytic process

The concept of turning aggression on the self is studied, and some clinical vignettes are presented which demonstrate the use of this concept as a guide to the formation of an "ideal" for one kind of analytic intervention with one kind of analytic surface. Pertinent literature is reviewed, and assumptions implicit to the analyst's activity are discussed. This endeavor is viewed in the larger context of attempts to arrive at a clearer understanding of the psychoanalytic process.     

The psychoanalytic process

Analysts differ in how they conceptualize the psychoanalytic process, according to their understanding of the psychoanalytic theory of mental functioning in general and the nature of pathogenesis in particular. Emphasizing that psychoanalysis is a psychology of mental conflict, the authors see the psychoanalytic process in terms of the dynamic interplay between the manifestations of the patient's unconscious and the analyst's interventions. What analysts communicate to analysands serves to destabilize the equilibrium of forces within the mind, leading to the analysands' growing understanding of the nature of their conflicts and how they deal with them. Psychoanalytic process, accordingly, cannot be distinguished or separated from psychoanalytic technique.     

Mutative interpretation and close process monitoring in a study of psychoanalytic process

When James Strachey defined the mutative interpretation, he did not have defense interpretation in mind, but a few years later Anna Freud opened the door to new ways of making small-scale non-transference and transference interpretations that alter superego functions. Using her model and a special mode of listening, the authors suggest an updated technique of intervention with resultant superego change, which qualifies for consideration as a later version of the mutative interpretation.     

The psychoanalytic process: the developmental and the integrative

Psychoanalysis is a treatment that focuses on intrapsychic events and activates integrative tendencies to promote-insights. Almost from the time it originated, however, it was also promoted as a therapy informed by the interpersonal, inducing change through experiences generated within the psychoanalytic situation. In recent years the interpersonal or object relations approach has come to be categorized as "developmental," a term that fosters no end of ambiguities. The resulting confusion compromises the study of the actual developmental process on the one hand and the structure-enhancing features of transactions on the other. This encumbers research on the psychoanalytic process. The author distinguishes the intrapsychic from the interpersonal, the integrative from the developmental, and the two very different realms of psychological activities currently advanced as "developmental."     

The effects of overcorrection: a case study

The effects of overcorrection on multiple problems were studied in a single case. Whilst the techniques proved effective, they were extremely time-consuming and during treatment periods there were large increases in collateral behavior. Clinical implications of these findings are discussed.     

The elusive concept of the psychoanalytic process

Although the term psychoanalytic process is frequently used, there is no consensual definition of its meaning. Some authors use it to designate a recognizable set of experiences within psychoanalysis. Others, a majority, use it as a synonym for the entire psychoanalytic experience, describing in detail what analysts do to achieve their goals. A range of views may be found between these extremes. A distinction is drawn here between the structure and content of the psychoanalytic process, which is regarded as a specific, definable entity--a red thread--within the psychoanalytic treatment experience as a whole, consisting of a microprocess and a macroprocess. The former is predominantly an amalgam of the patient's and the analyst's highly subjective experiences and entanglements, while the latter is predominantly an amalgam of the infantile and childhood origin of the patient's difficulties, as well as the analyst's conception of these difficulties based on a preferred theory. These ideas are used to formulate a definition of the psychoanalytic process based on clinical experience and are traced here primarily through lessons learned from a patient, Mr. K, over the course of a long and arduous analysis.     

Further observations on the psychoanalytic process

The psychoanalytic process remains a fascinating and valuable concept, albeit an incompletely understood and controversial one. The author reviews the ideas in his 1984 essay and looks back on some of the critiques and proposals that followed that paper. He suggests that the concept of the psychoanalytic process is viable and useful despite its shortcomings. Consideration is given to the goals of psychoanalytic treatment as they relate to the "process" and how the "process" may be helpful in determining whether or not a patient is "in" analysis.     

Some observations on the psychoanalytic process

The author's aim is to delineate the psychoanalytic process and to distinguish it from the psychoanalytic situation, the transference neurosis, "insight," and psychoanalytic technique in general. Freud's 1913 views provide the basis for a concept of the psychoanalytic process centered on the recognition and interpretation of resistances and on the patient's reactions to the analyst's interventions. This clinically observable "unit" of the process is described and compared with Bernfeld's "facts of observation." The proposition is advanced that the process does not come to an end with the termination of analysis. It continues postanalytically in the form of the patient's more objective and more effective capacity for self-observation. The paper closes with a warning about the "pitfalls of perfectibilism" and with a plea for the elevation of the not-so-good analytic hour.     

Conceptualizations of the psychoanalytic process

A demonstrable psychoanalytic process involves elaborate and sustained intrapsychic experiences and phenomena for both analysand and analyst. It also includes a complex and at times subtle interpersonal relationship in which each participant is actively sensitive and responsive to verbal and nonverbal input from the other. These interpersonal experiences stimulate further intrapsychic responses which in turn may have further interpersonal effects. Within the framework of the psychoanalytic situation, these combined intrapsychic and interpersonal responses lead first to facilitative and ultimately to definitive changes in the patient's psychological organization and function. A method for demonstrating a psychoanalytic process is described.     

The psychoanalytic process and its components

Certain problems in defining the psychoanalytic process emerged during the five years in which a COPE study group was attempting to clarify the concept. There was agreement about the bed-rock criteria to be included in a definition: e.g., transference, resistance, a dynamic unconscious, intrapsychic conflict, defense, infantile sexuality, insight which causes change, and change which brings insight. The disagreements centered on the locus of the psychoanalytic process, the best way to conceptualize change, and the methodological problem of validating whether specific interventions cause specific claimed effects. Confusion about how to account for the interactional aspect of the psychoanalytic situation in a manner consistent with a one-person psychology emerged as an important source of the difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory definition of the psychoanalytic process.