I'm in psychoanalysis myself and recently I have thought a lot about what is it that makes the treatment I'm experiencing psychoanalysis or what is it that makes it psychoanalytic at all and most of all, what is it that makes it super useful for me.

I don't have a clear understanding yet but to my understanding psychoanalytic and psychodynamic therapy should be basically synonyms. Also, I think psychoanalytic therapy and contemporary psychoanalysis are to my mind very close to synonyms, the major differences being perhaps only the differences in some parameters - full psychoanalysis occurring usually 4-5 times per week and the patient usually lying on the couch.

What I think differentiates psychoanalytic/psychoanalytic therapy and psychoanalysis from other therapies is the expectance of developing transferences and explicitly working with them. Also the fact that the sessions are patient-lead and without concrete structure, goals and homeworks - but this is also happening in person-centered and possibly other therapies as well.

All other things, I think, should be a parameter that is dependent on a particular patient and therapist. Literature usually characterises psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic therapy as something where the main techniques are free association, interpretation and the passive (blank slate) stance of the therapist. My understanding is that if someone adopts these techniques by the book, not taking into account the patients current situation and how well she tolerates or benefits from these techniques, then this is one helluva bad therapist and the therapy most probably is frustrating to the patient at best and harming at worst.

When I think about what is it that makes my own therapy so useful and satisfying to me (although it is very difficult and also frustrating sometimes) is the fact that my T is very dynamic and I would even say fluid. He is very active in the session, which doesn't mean that he necessarily talks a lot, but i can sense that he is very actively trying to assess and understand the situation at each moment. Depending on what is happening with me he chooses the techniques - whether he talks more (even for me), whether he keeps silent, whether he answers questions, whether he reflects them back to me, whether he encourages exploration or rather attempts to support me, whether he offers an interpretation or avoid interpreting altogether. This kind of dynamic, I think, is not characteristic to psychoanalytic therapy per se - any good therapist should be this active and attentive but this is what makes the therapy tolerable and useful for me. What makes it psychoanalysis specifically, are perhaps only the three things I already mentioned - sessions 4 times per week, lying on the couch and working with transference.

You describe your therapist as someone who seems to apply techniques without assessing your readiness to benefit from using those techniques at such a level. I also find saying that something is resistance quite unprofessional. What would you gain from such a statement? Everybody has their defences and for good reason and saying that something is a defence or a resistance doesn't dissolve it.

I would encourage you to be less compromising with your therapist in that sense that if you feel what the T is doing is not helping you then talk about it out and loud and ask about it until the T gives you a satisfactory answer. It's possible that if it is NHS supported therapy that the therapists there are not that well trained and you might actually be better off without such treatment. Just today someone here wrote about their experience with psychodynamic therapy provided by an inexperienced therapist with very adverse consequences. Sometimes no therapy is much better for your mental health than bad therapy. But in order to find out whether there is something good and useful in this therapy for you or does it have the risk of being harming it would help to confront the therapist more forcefully and explicitly to find out if what the T really has to offer you.