n their continued close read of the German Architect, Deb and Maury highlight issues around suggestion and leading the witness, philosophy of science questions around creating falsifiable hypotheses, and they offer alternate lines of interpretation in the case, especially regarding the emergence of the story of the man in the bistro. Importantly, they offer the possibility that the incident with the man in the bistro is not unequivocally a “breakthrough,” but might also reflect a variation on the earlier defiant transference enactment that has become visible in the case. They finish by reflecting on the importance of revisiting and reinterpreting cases, rather than accepting any one interpretation as final.

References:

Apfelbaum, B., & Gill, M. M. (1989). Ego analysis and the relativity of defense: Technical implications of the structural theory. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 37(4), 1071-1096. https://doi-org.libezproxy2.syr.edu/10.1177/000306518903700410 (Original work published 1989)

Davanloo, H. (1990). Unlocking the Unconscious. (Wiley).

Pollack, D. (2024). On closing the frame: An existential argument for setting a time-limit in ISTDP. Journal of Contemporary ISTDP.