To Harriet Meek
 
Dear Harriet,
 
Thanks for your message following up mine about Valerie Sinason's classic book
on the psychotherapy of handicap.  I think your message came to me personally
rather than through the list.  I'm not actually sure about this as this
technology gets me confused at times.  I wish I had the time to master it.
 
I do always have the sense that American psycho-analysis is a very different
beast from British (and probably continental).  But how to make this difference
apparent?  Is it the case that the difference itself is more (or only) apparent
from this side of the Atlantic?
 
I thought that Chris Mawson's attempt to give a careful process record of a
session or two was a brave effort.  But somehow it did not manage to create a
sufficient vividness of any difference.  What interested me in the responses was
the emphasis that was given to right and wrong technique, whether or not he was
or was not intrusive into his patient.  What was not so apparent was an interest
in following the material - the affective process that was weaving between the
analyst and the patient.  Nor did it give rise to others bringing in their
material.  Of course nor did I.  I wonder why it did not  stimulate more
contributions of this kind.  Have you any ideas?
 
Thank you for your comments, and efforts, with regard to 'Clinical Klein'.  I
don't know what the Psychoanalytic Connection is.  But it doesn't sound as if I
would be very interested in it!!  I think perhpas it is easier top have a
raomantic attachment to England and things English, if you are far away.  But
perhpas that is typical English self-depraction.
 
I think I will send this back to the list to see if it provokes any response to
our sense of a deep division in the psychoanalytic consciousness either side of
the atlantic.
 
With best wishes,
 
 
Bob