ABSTRACT
In examining the question of what makes a treatment ``analytic'', it is important to not become part of the timeless political debate that is only circular and often destructive to all parties. Rangell (1996) states ``the speci®cally analytic is the direction toward the unconscious, the intrapsychic, and the scanning for con¯ictual states. These are the essential . . . concerns of analysis. . . . The sine qua non, which stamps a procedure or an explanation of behavior as analytic is its speci®c focus on the intra-psychic, unconscious, and con¯ictual'' (pp. 143±4). This de®nition bypasses the tiring theoretical debate of ``is it psychoanalysis or is it psychotherapy'' and looks at what is occurring clinically.
