the Rat Man was attributed to Freud’s humanism (Boyer & Giovaccini, 1967). In hispioneering case of the Wolf Man, however, Freud formally introduced four noninterpre-tative measures: (1) a cure was promised; (2) the patient was treated without a fee; (3)money was raised for the treatment; and (4) a termination date was set (Freud, 1918/1955).It was Freud’s clinical acumen that moved him to deviate from his own standardprocedure (Roazen, 1975). The analysis of The Wolf Man could not be conducted, Freudbelieved, by only the use of his standard technique. His idea was to match the analysand’sdevelopmental and real-life needs with meaningful therapeutic procedures. Although itcannot be said that the noninterpretative measures provided a cure for the Wolf Man, it didelasticize the concept of psychoanalytic treatment. Freud’s inﬂuence continued after hisdeath, when a series of analysts would journey to Germany during the summer months, tocontinue to treat The Wolf Man without a fee (Roazen, 1975).
Ferenczi’s Elasticity Principle
Freud believed the treatment of difﬁcult cases where childhood trauma was evident wasthe future of psychoanalysis (Freud, 1919 /1958). While Freud turned his attentionto the further development of theory, he entrusted the evolution of analytic method toFerenczi (Rachman, 1997, 2003a). Ferenczi devoted his career to the study of trauma andthe elasticizing of the boundaries of the analytic method (Rachman, 1997, 2003a, 2007).In a series of groundbreaking papers, Ferenczi described the expansion of the analyticmethod to include a wide array of noninterpretative measures (Ferenczi, 1980a–1980l,1988). These were measures that allowed the analysts to create a variety of clinicalinteractions other than the tradition of interpretation, such as active roles for the analystand the analysand; cocreated clinical interventions; clinical empathy; countertransferenceanalysis; analyst self-disclosure; and mutual analysis (Rachman, 1997, 1998, 2003a, 2004,2007). The most extensive description of an analysis where noninterpretative measureswere used was Ferenczi’s case of Elizabeth Severn, (R.N. in
The Clinical Diary
[Ferenczi,1988]). Ferenczi conducted his analysis with Severn to deal with severe and persistentchildhood trauma (Balint, 1968; Ferenczi, 1988; Rachman, 1997, 1998, 2003a, 2007).Both Eissler’s idea of “parameters” (Eissler, 1953) and Stone’s concept of “wideningthe scope” (Stone, 1954) brought the idea of noninterpretative measure into the domain of traditional psychoanalysis. In the ensuing years since the Eissler and Stone publications,noninterpretative measures have been explored, reformulated, extended, and integratedinto the object relations: interpersonal/humanistic, self-psychology, and relational per-spectives (Rachman, 2003a). The British Object Relations perspective, most notablyBalint (1968) and Winnicott (1965), integrated an active role for the analyst when“working to the zone of regression” with severe neurotic, borderline, or psychoticdisorders. Balint was a witness to Ferenczi’s extensive use of noninterpretativemeasures in the analysis of Elizabeth Severn (Balint, 1968). In fact, one could say thatFerenczi’s case report about Severn was the ﬁrst attempt to formally use noninter-pretative measures to aid in the analysis of trauma (Rachman, 2009). Margaret Littlereported on her analysis with Winnicott and his use of noninterpretative measures(Little, 1981). Self-psychologists, most notably, Bacal (1990) and Estelle and MortonShane (Shane & Shane, 1996), have attempted to expand the traditional Kohutian modelto include noninterpretative measures. Both Bacal and Morton Shane were students of Balint. Bacal also has integrated object relations ideas into his self-psychology perspective(Bacal & Newman, 1990).
260 RACHMAN, YARD, AND KENNEDY