ABSTRACT
I have discussed modern conflict theory and its emphasis on unconscious conflict and compromise. Some of the difficulties with this focus revolve around its narrow definition of aetiology (only conflict and compromise between four narrowly-defined variables), its narrow view of mutative effect (insight into the dynamics of an already developed inner world) and its narrow view of the analyst's role (receiver of transference distortions and interpreter of them). I have stated that one major challenge to this position revolves around the question of what happens to conflict in an inner world that is not fully developed. Under these circumstances, is there a change in the analyst's optimal posture? A second major challenge, then, one that follows from the first, revolves around differing conceptions of the patient-analyst experience. This takes many forms, from the effect of this experience on establishing and maintaining a patient's reflective capacity, to how the analyst uses non-verbal data that he or she receives (often through awareness of countertransference affect or enactments), to questions regarding the mutative role of this experience.
