[Pure doctrine and exact technic?]

There is a theoretical attitude in psychoanalysis that can be described as "pure teaching" (E. Wiesenhütter), and a practice that can be described as "exact technique". An important point, in which theory and practice seem to be in harmony is the rejection of agitating and the request of an anonymous neutrality concerning the psychoanalyst. The research serves the discussion about this coupled conception. Freud has imprinted theory and practice concerning this subject, but he himself was sovereign in the use of it. In the daily process of psychoanalysis, teaching and technique are always coming up with new questions in the concrete situation. They only asymptotically reach the point of absolute pureness and exactness. The author is selfcriticizing the psychoanalysis in the subjects mentioned above. He points out that flexibility in teaching and technique does not at all imply a revisionism of psychoanalysis; only when it is evident for psychoanalysis that a well-weighed theory is necessary as well as the relevant practice for the theory, there will be the greatest possible freedom for both of them.