ABSTRACT
Thomas Ogden and Ferro have proposed the view that all analyses, and thus all reveries, are entirely co-constructed. Most psychoanalysts agree with Pine that the mind is both ‘“internally driven and relationally responsive”. M. J. Diamond raised the question of an ethical transgression when the analyst uses his own mental experience in the extreme, forgetting about the patient’s psychology and focusing instead on the analyst. While Ogden’s view of the co-construction of a session is an idea worth considering amongst many, it became for him and many others, the new psychic meaning of the dream in psychoanalysis. Many others have pointed to the difficulties in considering all of what is going on in analysis as co-constructed. The analyst’s reflections upon his/her mental processes often function like an internal supervisor that disrupts the dyadic fusional patient–analyst connection dominated by imaginary identification.
