Weinshel E M
San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute.
J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 1992;40(2):327-47. doi: 10.1177/000306519204000202.
As the distinctions between what we consider to be psychoanalysis and what we consider to be psychoanalytic psychotherapy have become more uncertain and more blurred, it follows that it is equally difficult to designate the techniques that would be appropriate and specific for each modality. The problem has been compounded by the fact that in recent years psychoanalysis in the United States has become considerably less homogeneous than in the past and the ego-psychological structural model is no longer the only point of view in the psychoanalytic marketplace. Further, with alterations in the criteria for analyzability, cases which, generally, had not been viewed as suitable for analysis, have been appearing with increasing frequency on psychoanalysts' couches. We have also recognized that the degree of congruence between our expectations from and the results of psychoanalytic treatment was often less than anticipated. It appears that analysts have become considerably less arbitrary about what psychoanalysis is and how a psychoanalysis can be carried out. The author is unable to delineate one technique that is intrinsic to and limited to psychoanalysis. There are, however, differences in degree and emphasis in the ways in which various techniques are applied in the therapy of psychoanalysis as compared to the therapy of psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Special attention is given to the role of a psychoanalytic process and the central place the analysis of resistance plays in psychoanalytic therapy.
随着我们所认为的精神分析与我们所认为的精神分析心理治疗之间的区别变得越来越不确定和模糊，由此可见，指定适用于每种治疗方式的特定技术同样困难。近年来，美国的精神分析比过去更加多样化，自我心理学结构模型不再是精神分析市场上唯一的观点，这一事实使问题更加复杂。此外，随着可分析性标准的改变，那些通常被认为不适合分析的案例越来越频繁地出现在精神分析师的治疗椅上。我们也认识到，我们对精神分析治疗的期望与治疗结果之间的一致程度往往低于预期。看来，分析师们对精神分析是什么以及如何进行精神分析的随意性已经大大降低。作者无法描绘出一种专属于精神分析且仅限于精神分析的技术。然而，与精神分析心理治疗相比，各种技术在精神分析治疗中的应用方式在程度和重点上存在差异。特别关注精神分析过程的作用以及对阻抗的分析在精神分析治疗中所占据的核心地位。
