Breaking the solid ground of common sense: undoing "structure" with Michael Balint

Balint's great merit was to question what, in the classical perspective, was assumed as a prerequisite for analysis and thus located beyond analysis: the maturity of the ego. A fundamental premise of his work was Ferenczi's distrust for the structural model, which praised the maturity of the ego and its verbal, social, and adaptive abilities. Ferenczi's view of ego maturation as a trauma derivative was strikingly different from the theories of all other psychoanalytic schools and seems to be responsible for Balint's understanding of regression as a sort of inverted process that enables the undoing of the sheltering structures of the mature mind. Balint's understanding of the relation between mature ego and regression diverged not only from the ego psychologists, who emphasized the idea of therapeutic alliance, but also from most of the authors who embraced the object-relational view, like Klein (who considered regression a manifestation of the patient's craving for oral gratification), Fairbairn (who gave up the notion of regression), and Guntrip (who viewed regression as a schizoid phenomenon related to the ego weakness). According to Balint, the clinical appearance of a regression would "depend also on the way the regression is recognized, is accepted, and is responded to by the analyst." In this respect, his position was close to Winnicott's reformulation of the therapeutic action. Yet, the work of Balint reflects the persuasion that the progressive fluidification of the solid structure could be enabled only by the analyst's capacity for becoming himself or herself [unsolid].