ABSTRACT
The background of our style of family therapy is def ined by a part icular, personal pattern. M y deve lopment as a psychotherapist was associated w i th a deficit in the formal tra ining i n psychiatry. D u e to my previous training as an obstetrician/gynecologist, I was granted board credit i n psychiatry. The W o r l d W a r II personne l demands left l i t t le psychiatr ic tra ining available. I then (1938) worked for two years as the resident psychiatr ic administrator in a small d i - agnostic hospital operated under an antiquated custodial care system. I was taught nothing about dynamic or psychoanalytic psychiatry. Rather, I learned hospital care maneuvers and, thereby, escaped the fear of insanity wh i ch was so prevalent among those who learned psychiatry i n the midst of the b ig state hospital masses
of "de ter io ra t ing " patients. M y subsequent tra ining was i n a ch i ld gu id -
ance c l in ic . I learned play therapy and was superv ised by the chie f social worker who had been tra ined i n the Rankian tradit ion. She i n - terv iewed each mother, wh i l e I interv iewed the ch i ld . The two interviews were handled separately and then rev iewed. N o effort was made to involve the father, and there was no co-therapy. I was steeped in the power dynamics of experiences that result from interact ing w i th ch i ld ren as the process of change is l i ved out in the p layroom. The use of symbols and nonverbal communicat ion is dominant i n ch i l d therapy, and p lay ing on the floor, p lay ing w i th toys, talking Me lan i e K l e i n (1932) talk, struggl ing w i th problems of discipline and boundary control-all encouraged a learning of process talk. The ch i l d who was bored w i th toys was obviously end ing his psychotherapy; the ch i ld who talked about the l i t t le boy next door who needed he lp was ready to leave therapy.
