Abstract
When comparing child analysis with that of grown-ups, we are confronted with a substantial unity of psychoanalytic method, beyond the apparent differences. The more we consider the analysis as a here-and-now interaction between analyst and patient with transformative potential, the more age-dependent differences become blurred, and the specificity of a particular analytic couple acquires more significance. At the same time, what seems to be all the same—the actual patient before us—is quite different, with several components (the child, adolescent, and adult parts), implying a need to recognize the part we should address at any given point.