Hello, dear Gretchen! We are overjoyed and deeply moved by the realization that we are writing to the editor-in-chief of an international journal of psychoanalysis and to a remarkable psychoanalyst. It is a tremendous honor and responsibility for us to write to you!

 

After reading your article "Our Unconscious Attitude Toward Psychoanalytic Theory Psychoanalytic Quarterly," 2021, No. 2, p. 299, which piqued our interest, we studied it carefully and decided to reach out to you.

 

Your excellent presentation of the clinical case of patient Charlie could not leave us indifferent. While studying the article, we even imagined for a moment the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, who, we are certain, would also have carefully studied your article and written you a letter, had he had such an opportunity.

 

We assume that Freud would have analyzed his response based on the structure of Psychic Reality. Consequently, Sigmund Freud would have viewed the problematic behavior of the boy Charlie from a somewhat different perspective, and this fact is very important for us to discuss. Allow us to do so.

 

Based on the case presented, we can identify 7 main internal objects within the sphere of the "Ego":

1. Charlie;

2. Charlie’s mother;

3. Charlie’s uncle;

4. Uncle Charlie’s biological children;

5. The owl;

6. Psychoanalyst;

7. The Forest.

 

It is our firm conviction that Sigmund Freud would have systematically organized all the events that occurred in Charlie’s life prior to his admission to the first psychiatric hospital and described this story as follows: "Mom loved her son Charlie very much and loved Charlie’s father. They were a happy married couple who could only have produced such a wonderfully beautiful son. Most likely, something happened to Charlie’s father, and this grief triggered his wife’s serious illness, making it difficult for her to continue raising her son. In such a painful state, Charlie’s mother decided to turn to her own brother for help. She wrote him a letter: "Dearest brother, I can no longer raise my son. I am completely overcome by my illness. I am so sorry that things have turned out this way. Please take my son into your family to raise him."

 

Of course, her brother didn’t refuse, but he himself was strapped for cash, raising his own three children. As a result, Charlie became a huge burden for his uncle.

 

Due to the circumstances, a situation of conflicting goals and actions began to unfold in his uncle’s family, which Charlie’s childish mind perceived as the greatest tragedy of his life, since his mother had assured him that his uncle would love him as his own son. But every day, Charlie realized the opposite was true: his uncle loved his own children, but never once showed Charlie affection or spoke a kind word to him; on the contrary, he always took out his anger on Charlie alone and periodically beat and punished him cruelly.

 

Charlie had no choice but to protect and preserve his inner self by expressing a vivid sense of aggression – a trait shaped, judging by the circumstances, by his strong and courageous father – which later helped Charlie survive. After all, if Charlie had been prone to masochistic traits, he would have perished as a result of the tragic events unfolding in his uncle’s family.

 

Given that Charlie was in the Oedipal stage of his psychosexual development during this series of tragic events (it is important to recall that his mother had placed Charlie in his brother’s care when Charlie was eight years old), it follows that the child’s aggressive tendencies would have intensified twofold or even threefold. And Charlie did everything he could to end up in a psychiatric hospital, because that was the place that could be safer for the boy than his uncle’s home.

 

We know that all the doors of a psychiatric hospital are always locked and that every patient is under strict supervision. Charlie was convinced of this as well. Therefore, as he stepped off the bus that had brought him from the psychiatric hospital to the new children’s hospital, he realized he had to seize the chance to escape when he saw the young female psychoanalyst from whom he could run away.

 

Every time you marvel at the wisdom of the phenomenon of psychic reality, you realize that it is precisely the psychoanalyst’s countertransference reaction that compels her to run after Charlie, catch up to the boy, and hold him tightly with her whole body.

 

This incident in the forest becomes a source of comfort for Charlie and a clear realization that, although he had a very difficult time living with his uncle’s family, the psychoanalyst who caught up with him in the forest had it even worse in her own life. Therefore, the psychoanalyst’s tapping on Charlie’s body was needed, first and foremost, only by the psychoanalyst herself as a means of self-reassurance.

 

It should be noted that in the course of her professional practice, the psychoanalyst has no right to find oneself in such situations, adhering to the principle of neutrality, which is one of the essential components of psychoanalytic conditions. But countertransference always introduces its own adjustments. As a result, the psychoanalyst exposed herself twice: first, she revealed her fear by wrapping her body around Charlie, and then she admitted that she was afraid of owls.

 

The full picture of countertransference unfolds during the psychoanalyst’s run through the forest, during which she had three more questions, cited by the author in the article: "Will I be able to catch up with him before he gets lost?" "Will he hit me, or will I hit him?" "Will he be violent if I catch up to him?"

 

At this point, one might speculate that the psychoanalyst wanted a son but feared she would not be able to raise a child on her own. That is why she held Charlie tightly, thereby confirming that only through this action could she keep her son in her arms.

 

But, having freed herself from countertransference, the psychoanalyst could have played the right role: in her interaction with Charlie, she could have been the Madonna who fears nothing and will certainly save him, since she is not a "cruel uncle" – she is completely different: she is the one who helps!

 

Also in this case, by adopting the correct psychoanalytic stance, one could employ a professional trick: give Charlie a chance to run a little further into the woods so that he would get scared and want to stop on his own. At that moment, the psychoanalyst could shout: "Charlie, I’ll help you. Just let me know where you are." Charlie would certainly have responded to her call!

 

In conclusion, we must analyze the last important aspect of the events described: "What does the owl symbolize?" And the answer to this question is a clue from the author himself. The owl asked the psychoanalyst, when she was ten years old: "Who are you?" And this incident frightened the girl.

 

Let us suppose that recognizing herself as a girl who would one day become a mother would have been a saving grace for the psychoanalyst, both as a man and as a professional, allowing her to avoid many difficulties in the future.

 

Charlie asked the psychoanalyst, "Were you frightened?" And the psychoanalyst replied, "Yes, but the owl did not cause me any pain." That is, the psychoanalyst recognized her readiness to be a mother for the first time and did so with extreme caution.

 

Today we are certain that Sigmund Freud would be extremely pleased by the fact that his brainchild – modern psychoanalysis – is currently actively developing and flourishing, and that your name, dear Gretchen, is among its followers!

 

Dear Gretchen, thank you for sharing that you were a student of Robert Langs himself. Many professionals would also like to be his students, but will never be able to do so. You are incredibly lucky!

 

Please know that on the beautiful American soil, living members of the indigenous Veps people reside and conduct scientific research, and we have not given up hope of meeting you to discuss significant questions regarding the endlessly fascinating practice of dream interpretation.

 

With respect and best wishes, Evgenii and Olga of the Laksha clan.