Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To suggest new content…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Help us improve PEP Web. If you would like to suggest new content, click here and fill in the form with your ideas!

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

Boesky, D. (1995). Commentaries. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 43:356-360.

(1995). Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 43:356-360


Dale Boesky

John Gedo raises valuable questions about the concept of working through, but I have the impression that his answers to these questions are misleading. I will attempt to show why I think so.

The term working through seems to have fallen into disuse in the past decade, and it would be useful to know why this is so. Although numerous authors since Freud have examined the concept, there has never been any consensual agreement on an acceptable definition. Brenner (1987) seems to have been correct in saying that working through seemed in general to mean each author's explanation of why analysis is so difficult, why it takes so long, and why it sometimes fails. For those who favored defense or resistance analysis, working through consisted of an alteration in the defense organization. For those who saw working through as a mourning process, it was the task of grieving. Gedo sees working through as a learning process in which patients learn how to think more clearly.

[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 © 2020, 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.