Should Analytic Patients Be “Created”? Reflections on Arnold Rothstein's<i>Psychoanalytic Technique and the Creation of Analytic Patients</i>

Lazar, Susan G.

doi:10.1080/07351692009348907

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We must ask how our agenda to do more analysis and to have analytic practices affects our engagement with our patients. Lazar (2000) speaks of the analyst's zeal and warns that if the goal of the analyst is to intensify the treatment for her own reasons, she will not be respectful or optimally responsive to patients who are not capable of initially engaging in a deep and intensive analysis. She recommends that "the analyst's primary focus should be to provide an availability to work on the patient's conflicts and developmental needs with a respect for the timing of their emergence and expression within a treatment frame that invites but does not prematurely elicit and confront" (p. 556).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While it is important to be respectful of the patient's pace, rhythm, and wishes, it is important also that we not use these as rationalizations for our fears. Some analysts have warned that the practice of "creating" analytic patients is disrespectful of patients because it undermines their autonomy or creates sadomasochistic struggles by forcing them into analysis (Allison 2000;Bassen 1989;Lazar 2000). Like any other analytic interaction, recommending analysis can have a sadomasochistic cast.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Analyst’s Ambivalence About Continuing and Deepening an Analysis

Ehrlich

2010

J Am Psychoanal Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Analyst’s Ambivalence About Continuing and Deepening an Analysis

Ehrlich

2010

J Am Psychoanal Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other treatment options may be more appropriate. Susan Lazar (2000) contends that patients are not created; their entry into analysis is often the result of a gradual unfolding. She stresses the necessity of helping patients feel more autonomous by promoting the idea that it is the patient's agenda that is paramount, not the analyst's desire to have them enter analysis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Book Review: Making Freud More Freudian

Helman¹

2012

J Am Psychoanal Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developing Psychoanalytic Cases and the Candidates Who Will Analyze Them: an Educational Initiative

Rothstein

2010

J Am Psychoanal Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An educational initiative, Psychoanalytic Case Development Supervision, began as an ad hoc practical response when nearly half the candidates in a talented class lacked the psychoanalytic case required for progression. All incoming candidates were assigned a supervisor with whom to meet weekly to consider clinic applicants and patients in their psychotherapy practices for analysis. Gradually it has become clear that readying candidates, in highly individualized ways, to engage in intensive work is as important as developing patients. Not only has this program yielded beneficial results for progression; it has also contributed to a subtle paradigm shift in pedagogy centering on two contemporary controversies: objective assessment of analyzability vs. subjectivity in recommending analysis, and the value of a categorical distinction, based on frequency of sessions and use of the couch, between psychoanalysis and psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy. A four-year process of discovery-drawing on interviews with forty-nine participants (educators, supervisors, candidates)-is contextualized within the literature on these controversies. Participants' reflections are discussed, as are other features of the program and future directions for this work in progress.

show abstract

Should Analytic Patients Be “Created”? Reflections on Arnold Rothstein'sPsychoanalytic Technique and the Creation of Analytic Patients

Cited by 3 publications

References 2 publications

The Analyst’s Ambivalence About Continuing and Deepening an Analysis

The Analyst’s Ambivalence About Continuing and Deepening an Analysis

Book Review: Making Freud More Freudian

Developing Psychoanalytic Cases and the Candidates Who Will Analyze Them: an Educational Initiative

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About