| Abstract: | James Strachey published his seminal paper on the nature of therapeutic action in 1934 in which he introduced his ideas on the mutative interpretation. He saw interpretation as the cornerstone of the psychoanalytic method. Since then, there has been a great deal of work looking at the essential nature of the interpretation and how it can promote change. By the1960s, Loewald and others were discussing how interpretation needed to incorporate new psychoanalytic thinking, particularly in the area of object relations. As the intersubjectivity of the psychoanalytic encounter gained more prominence, the use of the structural interpretation decreased. The author suggests that there is still need for further work on how interpretation can promote change. Using theoretical ideas and clinical examples, the paper concludes that the mutative interpretation continues to offer something potentially transformative, but that the technique has to take account of relational aspects of the treatment and the developmental issues of the patient. However, the clinician's relationship with the ideas about a mutative interpretation can also affect the clinician's ability to use it to a therapeutic effect. |
