Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To copy parts of an article…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

To copy a phrase, paragraph, or large section of an article, highlight the text with the mouse and press Ctrl + C. Then to paste it, go to your text editor and press Ctrl + V.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Busch, F. (1996). Fred Busch Responds. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 44:654-655.

(1996). Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 44:654-655

Fred Busch Responds

Fred Busch, Ph.D.

While Dr. Brenner and I are in agreement about many areas, we have important differences which deserve to be highlighted. There are also particular shadings he puts on what I write that are different from what I intended.

While I would agree with Brenner that the “advantages of defense analysis are generally accepted,” what different analysts mean by defense analysis is quite disparate. I believe it is no longer useful to perpetuate the myth of an unbroken line of defense analysis from Anna Freud to present day analysts. Gray's (1982) “developmental lag” paper was the first to dispel this myth, while my paper on resistance analysis (Busch, 1992) supported Gray's view from another perspective. Pray (1994) demonstrated the significant difference in the technique of defense analysis between Brenner and Anna Freud, while Brenner's (1994) eschewal of the ego as a useful construct, and his view that “there are no mental mechanisms or activities that serve the function of defense and nothing else” (p. 482) indicates a radically different view of defense analysis from that of Anna Freud. Thus, I believe there are fundamental differences in how analysts do defense analysis, and these differences have a significant impact upon technique. Masking these differences will only hold up our increased understanding of technique.

Brenner believes I recommend an approach free of dynamic understanding, but this is not the case. What I am writing about is not how the analyst understands, but what he or she does with that understanding.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2019, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.