Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: Books are sorted alphabetically…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

The list of books available on PEP Web is sorted alphabetically, with the exception of Freud’s Collected Works, Glossaries, and Dictionaries. You can find this list in the Books Section.

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

Wilson, E., Jr. (1990). Revue Française De Psychanalyse. XLVIII, 1984: Analysis Defined and Indefinable. About the Second Fundamental Rule. Jean-Luc Donnet. Pp. 239-289.. Psychoanal Q., 59:164.
Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing: Revue Française De Psychanalyse. XLVIII, 1984: Analysis Defined and Indefinable. About the Second Fundamental Rule. Jean-Luc Donnet. Pp. 239-289.

(1990). Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 59:164

Revue Française De Psychanalyse. XLVIII, 1984: Analysis Defined and Indefinable. About the Second Fundamental Rule. Jean-Luc Donnet. Pp. 239-289.

Emmett Wilson, Jr.

The second fundamental rule of analysis was enunciated by Ferenczi in his article, "The Elasticity of Psycho-Analytic Technique" (1928). The rule was that "anyone who wishes to undertake analysis must first be analyzed himself." Donnet compares this rule to the first fundamental rule of free association. This second rule seems to be an institutional prescription rather than a rule of analysis itself. How can it be on a par with the rule of free association? Donnet discerns a fundamental antinomy here. Freud's early emphasis was on analysts' understanding their own conflicts and their need for mastery of countertransference feelings. He was at first much more sanguine about the possibility of didactic analyses, but in his later writings, for example in "An Autobiographical Study" (1925), some bitterness and disillusion began to show. In "The Question of Lay Analysis" Freud was really dealing with the metapsychology of conviction, which does not seem to come from simply learning the theory in the abstract, but through a personal analysis. Yet it is this requirement of a personal analysis that confronts us with a basic antinomy in the position of analysts. They must on the one hand define their position in the treatment in relation to their patients' suffering, and on the other hand, they must accept their commitments to institutions which are concerned with the transmission of psychoanalysis and the maintenance of an analytic ideal. In this antinomy is to be seen one of the elements making the role of the analyst impossible. The risk is that the didactic analysis becomes less an analytic experience than a situation in which analytic doctrine is promulgated through the force of the transference. This makes it an experience of initiation or confirmation, rather than one of conviction. Still, the requirement of a personal analysis assures the chance that a genuine analysis of the analyst will take place in spite of its being also a prescribed procedure. It thus becomes not a verification of the theory, but a verification of its incompleteness and its openness in the face of the analytic experience and the unconscious.

- 164 -

Article Citation

Wilson, E., Jr. (1990). Revue Française De Psychanalyse. XLVIII, 1984. Psychoanal. Q., 59:164

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.