In certain cases, and under certain conditions, extremely useful analytic work can be done on the phone or through videoconferencing. Contrary to what some critics of teleanalysis maintain, with patients who are motivated and can make use of analysis, physical distance between analyst and patient and/or occasional technological difficulties do not limit or preclude successful analysis. Clinical material from three teleanalyses demonstrates various conditions that help make teleanalysis useful. Instead of being a disadvantage, the juxtaposition of the experience of the “tele” and the in-person settings (in occasional in-person sessions) provides increased and unique opportunities for analysis.

No abstract

Of the many variables that affect an analyst's capacity to analyze, the analyst's ambivalence about analysis has received minimal attention. A previous paper (Ehrlich 2004) addressed how the analyst's ambivalence manifests itself in reluctance to recommend analysis and address the patient's resistances to the recommendation. The present paper examines the analyst's ambivalence about maintaining and deepening the analytic engagement. More specifically, it explores the analyst's conflicts around maintaining the analytic frame. A detailed clinical example illustrates how the analyst's continued scrutiny of her reluctance to maintain the analytic frame allowed a continuation of the analysis and a deepening of the analytic process. Given the current economic crisis and patients' increased propensity to use concerns about fee and frequency as a mode of resistance, it becomes increasingly important for analysts to recognize how their own ambivalence undermines their capacity to address those resistances effectively.

No abstract