The case of Anna presented by Professor Giliberti is discussed from an interpersonal perspective. Attention is given to Anna's real experiences of hypocrisy, social inadequacy, hatred and blame projection. Paranoid aspects are emphasized and seen as connected with a disparity between appearance and reality in the communicative pattern of the family.
In this paper, hope is explored as a motivating force in analysis. To see the patient's and the analyst's hopes in terms of changes they expect the treatment to accomplish emphasizes the cognitive aspect of hope. While touching on these cognitive expectations, this paper focuses on the emotional, rather than the cognitive, function of hope in treatment. It addresses the question of how hope can inspire analytic participants to have the strength and stamina that analysis requires.
A Commentary
(1996)
Sandra Buechler's commentary provides an interesting counterpoint to Mar-golies's chapter. She observes that Fromm believed work should be an expres-sion and a vehicle for self-development and that this urge transcends historical circumstance. She questions whether the categories we create hinder or en-hance our understanding. She believes the self-developer category may have blinded the therapist to other aspects of the treatment. Her own reading of the clinical material would have led her to focus on different aspects of the patient, such as his narcissism and his sadistic sexual fantasies. Margolies would argue that these pathological elements were declining as he worked through old com-promise solutions and developed life-affirming passions in work and love-particularly as he strengthened the positive strivings of his social character ori-entation.