The framework of training analyses.

Abstract

This paper investigates, through specific but disguised vignettes, the influence of deviations from the ideal set of ground rules and boundaries of the analytic situation and relationship (the frame) on the training analysis experience. The material reveals a significant split between the conscious attitudes toward, and understanding of, these framework infringements and their unconscious implications in the thinking of both the analyst and the analysand. Clinical interludes in which deviations are at issue, when studied in terms of the patient's derivative (encoded) expressions, reveal a shift toward valid, unconscious perceptions of the analyst (nontransference) and a variety of pathological instinctual drive satisfactions, superego sanctions, and defenses that are unconsciously offered to the patient by the analyst. The basic therapeutic contract is seen as favoring pathological merger between patient and analyst, and as gratifying pathological narcissistic needs in both participants. As actualities fraught with unconscious meanings, the deviations (when unrectified) generate unconscious negative introjects of the analyst in the analysand. These prove detrimental to the analysand's growth, the resolution of his neurosis, and his development as an analyst. It is recommended that there be two classes of analysts: those who write and teach, and those who analyze candidates while remaining on the periphery of professional activities.