Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Discussion of “deadlocking and stalemating: Primitive defense mechanisms against progression in psychoanalysis,” by Jochen Kemper

Discussion of “deadlocking and stalemating: Primitive defense mechanisms against progression in... DISCUSSION OF "DEADLOCKING AND STALEMATING: PRIMITIVE DEFENSE MECHANISMS AGAINST PROGRESSION IN PSYCHOANALYSIS," BY JOCHEN KEMPER Gilead Nachmani Dr. Kemper has presented a vivid and clinically pertinent paper. He has addressed a topic that most psychoanalysts confront when they treat patients with serious, and seemingly intractable, psychopathology. He has done so with candor and forthrightness, and without distance or intellectualization. He has raised questions from his own experience, and given clinical illustra- tions to let us know from where his experiences and questions emerge. He raises questions that are loaded. For example, what does psychoanalysis do for us, and what does it do to us? By what, criteria do we judge our own work and the progress of our patients, in particular, when our patients do not seem to get better? If they are not getting better, do we continue our work? If we continue, how do we proceed? If we proceed, by what standards and methods do we chart our lonely path? In this regard, Dr. Kemper is writing from the perspectives of Bion (1967), Meltzer (1967), Winnicott (1974), Khan (1974), Klauber (1981), and Little (1981). He has presented a case of a seriously disturbed man with experiences of http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The American Journal of Psychoanalysis Springer Journals

Discussion of “deadlocking and stalemating: Primitive defense mechanisms against progression in psychoanalysis,” by Jochen Kemper

The American Journal of Psychoanalysis , Volume 48 (2): 10 – Jun 1, 1988

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/discussion-of-deadlocking-and-stalemating-primitive-defense-mechanisms-pWF3wQ8FL9

References (24)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
1988 Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis
ISSN
0002-9548
eISSN
1573-6741
DOI
10.1007/BF01252394
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

DISCUSSION OF "DEADLOCKING AND STALEMATING: PRIMITIVE DEFENSE MECHANISMS AGAINST PROGRESSION IN PSYCHOANALYSIS," BY JOCHEN KEMPER Gilead Nachmani Dr. Kemper has presented a vivid and clinically pertinent paper. He has addressed a topic that most psychoanalysts confront when they treat patients with serious, and seemingly intractable, psychopathology. He has done so with candor and forthrightness, and without distance or intellectualization. He has raised questions from his own experience, and given clinical illustra- tions to let us know from where his experiences and questions emerge. He raises questions that are loaded. For example, what does psychoanalysis do for us, and what does it do to us? By what, criteria do we judge our own work and the progress of our patients, in particular, when our patients do not seem to get better? If they are not getting better, do we continue our work? If we continue, how do we proceed? If we proceed, by what standards and methods do we chart our lonely path? In this regard, Dr. Kemper is writing from the perspectives of Bion (1967), Meltzer (1967), Winnicott (1974), Khan (1974), Klauber (1981), and Little (1981). He has presented a case of a seriously disturbed man with experiences of

Journal

The American Journal of PsychoanalysisSpringer Journals

Published: Jun 1, 1988

Keywords: Clinical Psychology; Psychotherapy; Psychoanalysis

There are no references for this article.