Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To see translations of this article…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

When there are translations of the current article, you will see a flag/pennant icon next to the title, like this: 2015-11-06_11h14_24 For example:


Click on it and you will see a bibliographic list of papers that are published translations of the current article. Note that when no published translations are available, you can also translate an article on the fly using Google translate.


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

Panzer, D.E. (2008). Multiple Models in Clinical Practice: Bane or Blessing?. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 56(2):595-609.

(2008). Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 56(2):595-609

Multiple Models in Clinical Practice: Bane or Blessing?

Dale E. Panzer

The use of multiple models in the clinical situation—a bane or a blessing? That was the question posed by Sydney Pulver, who chaired this panel, to set the stage for the audience. While acknowledging that this may be “too extreme a question,” Pulver underscored its importance, given that psychoanalysis is currently “in a theoretical state … characterized by pluralism.”

We have many different schools and many different ways of thinking about psychoanalysis. From the standpoint of the development and growth of psychoanalytic theory, is it good for us to have multiple models? Is it useful? Pulver raised these questions and then let the audience know we would not be dealing with them today. Instead the panel would look at multiple models from the clinical standpoint. That is, it would consider what stance the clinician should take and how the use of multiple models impacts the clinical work for good or ill.

Pulver and Glen Gabbard, the scientific program chair, assembled a panel of eminent clinicians to answer these therapeutic questions. Sander Abend, who identifies himself as an exponent of modern conflict theory, was selected to represent the position that one comprehensive theory remains optimal in the clinical setting. Ronald Britton, from England, who identifies himself as a post-Kleinian, was selected to represent his work with multiple models and perhaps to discuss how the pluralistic milieu in contemporary British psychoanalysis impacts his clinical work. Fred Pine acknowledges Freudian roots but does not identify himself with any school or theory. He was invited as a longstanding advocate of the clinical use of multiple models who has written extensively on the subject. Pulver said that Pine had hinted to him that he would say something that would be a variation on his previous views.

[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.