Comparative Psychoanalysis on the Basis of a New Form of Treatment Report

Abstract

“I get so sick and tired of hearing about the various different schools of psychoanalysis and their great superiority to the other one—whichever it is. The possibility of arguing about their various merits is simply endless—as long as you don't anchor any of it to facts. I don't know of any scientific work that is not based on observation.” (W. Bion, 3.7.1978, in 2005 b, p. 39)

In this article, we argue that it is essential to understand how the analyst applies his knowledge in the analytic situation to investigate the analytic process and develop research models to evaluated clinical hypothesis. We accept the premise that the analyst's theory influences technique and that an examination of an analysis involves an interactive process. We ask, “How do we understand the inseparable bound between therapy and research?” We argue that the understanding that develops in psychoanalysis is not research. For research to take place, an exploration of causal connections is necessary that includes the analyst's observations and thinking through out the analysis which can be evaluated by independent observers. We describe and demonstrate a research model based on an audio transcription and annotated comments of the analyst to convey his observations and thinking that can be evaluated by independent observers.

This article is a revised version of a paper given at the 43rd IPA Congress in New Orleans. Some parts were taken from a paper on the same topic that could be find on the IPA Homepage.

Notes

This article is a revised version of a paper given at the 43rd IPA Congress in New Orleans. Some parts were taken from a paper on the same topic that could be find on the IPA Homepage.

¹R. Wallerstein drew our attention to R. Schafer's (1983) ideal ideas about “Wild Analysis.” He suggested to replace “wild” by “comparative” psychoanalysis. Schafer compared the systems of Melanie Klein, Heinz Kohut, and Merton Gill. Of course, nobody would regard the three theories and their considerable merits as wild psychoanalysis. Unfortunately, the criteria, on which Schafers comparison is based, are not specified with regard to their pragmatic truth and their therapeutic qualities.

²It is noteworthy that Scarfone's (2002) commentary to the paper of Barros (2002) in the series “The analyst at work” was subtitled “An essay in comparative psychoanalytic practice.”

³Still, in 1937, Alexander criticised Ferenczi because of his emphasis on the emotional experiences. Today the “corrective emotional experiences” (without Alexander's role-playing) is recognised in all schools (Marohn, 1990).

⁴In view of the justified critique of the training within the IPA, Sandler's (1982) restriction that his simple definition applies only to those analysts properly trained under the auspices of the IPA, cannot be upheld today (Balint, 1948; Thomä, 1993; Thomä and Kächele, 1999; Kernberg, 2000, 2006, 2007; Kächele and Thomä, 2000; Auchincloss and Michels, 2003).

⁵According to Mitchell (1998, p. 5), many analysts became afflicted with the “Grünbaum Syndrome” after exposure to his criticism “that there is no way of testing their validity (i.e., of psychoanalytic interpretations) in any independent fashion.” The syndrome includes “Several days of guilty anguish for not having involved oneself in analytic research… And may (also) include actually trying to remember how analysis of variance works, perhaps even pulling a twenty-year-old statistics off the shelf and quickly putting it back. There may also be a sleep disturbance and distractions from work” (Mitchell, 1998, p. 5).

⁶In the second part, we change the style of our text. Helmut Thomä, as the treating analyst, speaks now in the first person singular.

⁷Among the many scholars who worked on those transcripts, Jimenez (2004) description of my personal style is to the point.

⁸Amalia is the German speciman case investigated very thoroughly from many perspectives (Kächele, Schachter, and Thomä, 2008).

⁹The derogatory colloquial headshrinker (psychiatrist) has no German counterpart and is unknown to Amalia. Her expression Schrumpfköpfe machen refers to a custom of Polynesian cannibalistic warriors who dry up the heads of killed enemies.