You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
PSYCHOANALYSIS RESTS ON A LONG TRADITION of constant interplay between theory and practice. Freud's writings reveal his awareness of the fact that theoretical models serve as guidelines for practice and that theory must be modified by the data of practice. Since Freud's writings were so varied and his models changed with new experience, we have had to accept and understand that psychoanalysis, as a composite, includes a number of theoretical lines or points of view, some of which are considered essential for the most complete definition of the science and others of which are considered to be dispensable for practice (Gill and Rapaport, 1959). Waelder (1962) has added a hierarchic categorization of the varying levels of theory, including clinical theory. Neutrality, as a concept, belongs to the level of clinical theory, but also has far-reaching significance for other aspects of psychology and metapsychology as they intertwine.
I believe it would be easy enough for most psychoanalysts to agree that what we do in psychoanalytic therapy with patients is in accord with our technical aims. However, even a casual perusal of psychoanalytic history reveals multiple and changing aims, justifying a brief review of how the aims of technique within psychoanalysis have changed with new challenges during these past three quarters of a century. I shall catalogue some of them in order to lend emphasis to the notion that practice and theory interact in changing contexts of need and perceived aims.