As multiple theoretical models contend on the American analytic scene, the holding function of theory emerges as a unifying theme. In addition to supplying an intellectual superstructure for the working analyst, theory provides a psychological presence—a sense of conviction, affective stability, reassurance, and self-esteem— that makes effective analytic work possible from the analyst's side. Ideological passions and differences arise from the vital need for the holding function in an intense and inchoate engagement like psychoanalysis. To show how adherents of different models use theory in practice, three clinical cases are reviewed, one from Betty Joseph, one from Lewis Aron, and one from the author. The last example reconstructs the analyst's subjective experience of treatment both in the selected hours and in terms of the analyst's preconscious use of theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Almond, R. (1989). Psychological change in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child44:304—324.
2.
——— (1995). The analytic role: A mediating influence in the interplay of transference and countertransference. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association43:469—494.
3.
——— (1999). The patient's part in analytic process: The influence of the analyst's expectations. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association47:520—541.
4.
Aron, L. (1996). A Meeting of Minds: Mutuality in Psychoanalysis . Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press .
5.
Bachant, J., & Richards, A. (1993). Review essay: Relational Concepts in Psychoanalysis: An Integration, by Steven Mitchell. Psychoanalytic Dialogues3:431—460.
6.
Bader, M.J. (1994). The tendency to neglect therapeutic aims in psychoanalysis . Psychoanalytic Quarterly63:246—270.
7.
Coen, S. (2000a). Why we need to write openly about our clinical cases. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association48:449—470.
8.
——— (2000b). The wish to regress in patient and analyst. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association48:785—810.
9.
——— (2002). Affect Intolerance in Patient and Analyst. Northvale, NJ:Aronson.
10.
Eisold, K. (1994). The intolerance of diversity in psychoanalytic institutes. International Journal of Psychoanalysis75:785—800.
11.
——— (1998). The New York Psychoanalytic Society's splitting and construction of authority. International Journal of Psychoanalysis79:871—886.
12.
Feinsilver, D. (1999). Counteridentification, comprehensive countertransference, and therapeutic action: Toward resolving the intrapsychic-interactional dichotomy . Psychoanalytic Quarterly68:264—303.
13.
Fonagy, P. (2003). Some complexities in the relationship of psychoanalytic theory to technique. Psychoanalytic Quarterly72:13—42.
14.
Frank, J.D., & Frank, J.B. (1991). Persuasion and Healing, 3rd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
15.
Friedman, L. (1988). The Anatomy of Psychotherapy. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
16.
Freud, S. (1913). On beginning the treatment. Standard Edition12:121—143.
17.
Gabbard, G., & Lester, E. (1995). Boundaries and Boundary Violations in Psychoanalysis . New York: Basic Books.
18.
Gedo, J., & Goldberg, A. (1973). Models of the Mind. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
19.
Grusky, Z. (1999). Conviction and conversion: The role of shared fantasies about psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Quarterly68:401—430.
20.
——— (2001). Conviction and interpretation: Hiding and seeking with words. Psychoanalytic Quarterly71:81—115.
21.
Hamilton, V. (1996). The Analyst's Preconscious. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
22.
Haynal, A. (1988). The Technique at Issue: Controversies in Psychoanalysis from Freud and Ferenczi to Michael Balint, transl. E. Holder. London: Karnak.
23.
Jacobson, J.G. (1994). Signal affects and our psychoanalytic confusion of tongues. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association42:15—42.
24.
Jones, E. (2000). Therapeutic Action: A Guide to Psychoanalytic Therapy. Northvale, NJ: Aronson .
25.
Joseph, B. (1989). Psychic change and the psychoanalytic process . In Psychic Equilibrium and Psychic Change: Selected Papers of Betty Joseph, ed. M. Feldman & E.B. Spillius.London : Tavistock/Routledge, pp. 192—202.
26.
Kernberg, O.F. (1993). Convergences and divergences in contemporary psychoanalytic technique. International Journal of Psychoanalysis74:659—674.
27.
Kirsner, D. (2000). Unfree Associations. London : Process Press.
28.
Kohut, H. (1971). The Analysis of the Self. New York: International Universities Press.
29.
Modell, A. (1975). A narcissistic defense against affects: The illusion of self-sufficiency. International Journal of Psychoanalysis56:275—285.
30.
Pine, F. (1990). Drive, Ego, Object, and Self. New York: Basic Books.
31.
Poland, W.S. (1996). Melting the Darkness: The Dyad and Principles of Clinical Practice. Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
32.
Pulver, S. (1993). The eclectic analyst, or the many roads to insight and change. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association41:339—358.
33.
Rangell, L. (2000). Psychoanalysis at the millennium: A unitary theory . Psychoanalytic Psychology17:451—466.
34.
Richards, A.D. (1999). A.A. Brill and the politics of exclusion. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association47:9—28.
35.
Schafer, R. (1983). The Analytic Attitude. New York: Basic Books.
36.
——— (2000). Reflections on “thinking in the presence of the other.” International Journal of Psychoanalysis81:85—96.
37.
Smith, H. (2001). Hearing voices: The fate of the analyst's identifications . Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association49:781—812.
38.
Smith, M.L., Glass, G.V., & Miller, T.I. (1980). The Benefits of Psychotherapy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
39.
Spezzano, C. (1999). The triangle of clinical judgment. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association46:365—388.
40.
Wallerstein, R. (1988). One psychoanalysis or many?International Journal of Psychoanalysis69:5—21.
