Back to Table of Contents
Edward Glover (1955) conducted the first survey on the clinical uses of free association. The survey included a question of how strict the analysts, members of the British Psychoanalytical Society, were in ‘requesting compliance with the cardinal rule’. The answers ranged from a request for strict compliance, to a tolerance of non-compliance, to such responses as, ‘What is this relaxation of the rule? Everything is free association, even non-compliance’. Further, he related the employment of the fundamental rule to different circumstances in the course of an analytic process. For instance, a pause in the flow of free association, for this author, is an indicator "that something is wrong" (p. 10). He notes that the experience of free association and of the analytic situation are new for the patient, since they do not occur in social relationships (p. 17). He emphasizes the need to ask the patient to express his feelings and not only his thoughts (p. 32); both silences and intellectualizations are considered resistances; in the case of prolonged silences, he advises to interpret the pre-verbal language (p. 32-33). Additionally, he emphasized that oral libidinal aspects are manifested in free association and also in the reception of interpretations (p. 110). These early developments initiated several trends in all regions, such as specification of conditions under which free associations preserve their central role as one of the structuring pillars of the psychoanalytic situation; conditions under which the qualified or minimal use is called for; modification of the theoretical understanding and clinical usage of free association, including widening of the range of what is meant by free association with wider range of patient population, considering age, clinical conditions and cultural factors; manner of instruction; and specifications of the factors facilitating and inhibiting free association. These developments, including controversies, inherent in the concept itself, were also substantiated by later surveys, conducted especially in the Americas. Many developments that followed were inter-regionally intertwined. Yet, each region, even while referring to the same theorists, often depicted and further developed different elements of their contribution. For this reason, the same author(s) may be mentioned by several regions, as to the specifics of their contribution variously relevant to a particular region’s further development of the concept.
III. FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS OF THE CONCEPT IN NORTH AMERICA
While in 1926 it was clear that conflict had two dimensions, one being defended content and the other being defense processes, Freud concentrated more on defended content. Anna Freud (1936) elevated defense processes to an equal status in the genesis of conflict. Heinz Hartmann (1939/1958), Ernst Kris (1955), David Rapaport (1951, 1958), and Erik Erikson (1950) then elaborated the wider functions of ego. Their work led to what became commonly known as Ego psychology. Hartmann (1950) also introduced the concept of ‘intrasystemic conflict’ within ego. Their writings reflect the idea of a balance between all forces emanating from and impinging on the human mind. Thus an analyst's stance, via the alliance with a
374
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online