94
PARTISAN REVIEW
show so clearly to the patient the "reality" of these conflicts, to
make these signs so objective, that his ego can recognize them as
rationalizations , irruptions, and derivatives of the latent conflict
behind them . It seems to me that if we wish to settle the latent
conflict, to make the decisive part of the hardened instinctual
energy capable of discharge , and so to restore mental health, we
must indeed first turn a possible future conflict into a present
one . This means that we must in fact provoke situations in which
the conflict becomes actual- but neither by playing the part of
fate in the real life of the patient, nor by joining in the trans–
ference through systematic, artificial behavior of our own, but
by psychoanalysing those points at which the latent conflicts
show themselves and by demonstrating their derivatives and
making objective the attitude toward them taken by the observ–
ing ego.
With all the cocksureness of a forty-year-old psychoanalyst in
his prime who has mastered the theories and clinical techniques of
ego psychology, Fenichel touted against Freud the virtues of defense
analysis. He maintained that if we understand how the analysand
wards off depression, anxiety, guilt, or shame; if we can demon–
strate to him how his resistances function to isolate, displace, pro–
ject, and act out ; then what has been repressed will become con–
SClOUS.
We see that Freud's cautious warnings of 1937 were quickly
denied and ignored. The dynamic process of idealization, pessim–
ism, reactive enthusiasm, and reactive skepticism began with
Freud's 1937 paper. The exaggerated claims and overestimation of
psychoanalysis in the post-World War Two era is usually attributed
to the successes achieved by analytic methods with war neuroses.
This is undoubtedly true - insight into the defensive nature of con–
version reactions was clinically therapeutic and did resolve symp–
toms, sometimes spectacularly. However, the very claim to om–
nipotence and overidealization of psychoanalysis indicated a denial
of Freud's warnings - it was also part of a defensive dynamic among
psychoanalysts, not the least of whom was Otto Fenichel. Many
psychoanalysts still have a hard time accepting the idea of limita–
tions. During the past fifty years there has been much denial of
Freud's 1937 paper. There is always the inclination to abandon the
prophet who admits to being not so powerful in favor of the prophet
who offers more .
On the issue of the efficacy of prophylactic analysis, Freud's
