Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
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:

2015-11-06_11h09_55

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.

Perman, J.M. (1960). Meetings of the New York Psychoanalytic Society. Psychoanal Q., 29:452.

(1960). Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 29:452

Meetings of the New York Psychoanalytic Society

Joshua M. Perman

DISCUSSION: Dr. Annie Reich commented on the observable readiness again to form a transference. Such transference willingness is observed in those who have suffered from severe neurosis; it remains as a residue of the deeply ingrained conflicts, and persists as a tendency toward pathologic object relationship, or fixations to infantile libidinal and aggressive aims. Perfect cures cannot be achieved. What we do achieve and demand in a successful analysis is a new capacity of the ego to deal with conflict situations. In subsequent analysis, these ego changes are observable.

Dr. Victor Rosen discussed the difficulties in the problem of validation. He agreed that focus on the transference was the logical approach. He questioned whether we can regard the patient's reaction to the interviewer as a transference neurosis, particularly since the frequency and length of contact that is implicit in the analytic procedure could not be duplicated in the follow-up interviews. He suggested that the transference phenomena observed might be the result of the analysis, noting that there is a greater readiness for such reactions once they have been mobilized in full force by analysis. Also there is greater readiness by analysts to observe these reactions.

Dr. Mortimer Ostow asked why the analysis could not have been assessed by the patient's analyst, thus avoiding the introduction of new unknowns. This, he believed, would have afforded more information regarding results and a better estimate of the patient's future.

Dr. Max Schur remarked that organic illnesses may cause a reactivation of neurotic symptoms. He wondered what the meaning of the study must have been for the patient, since it occurred in the midst of her concern about an organic illness. He questioned whether this had influenced the observable transference phenomena.

Dr. Rudolph Loewenstein observed that it is difficult to correlate an immediate transference reaction with the severity of a neurosis. A considerable inhibition may also be seen. One should therefore carefully qualify any statement about transference readiness being a criterion for evaluation of the results of treatment.

Dr. Pfeffer emphasized that the aim of the present study was to understand what he labels 'follow-up transference' so that its place as a means of evaluating analytic results could be established.

[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.