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.
Members of the editorial boards of the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Psychoanalytic Quarterly, and Psychoanalytic Inquiry, plus selected analysts from Canada, France, and England, were asked how they presented the fundamental rule to their analysands and what considerations led to their choice of initial guidelines. Forty-nine of eighty-three analysts responded to the survey.
The respondents described diversity in phrasing of the fundamental rule, the time in analysis when the guidelines are given, and the reasons for the practice they follow. The method each chose appears to reflect the differing conceptions analysts have of the analytic process. Two major trends emerged: either our respondents emphasized delineating a work or functional framework or contract, or they emphasized establishing an attitude or spirit of cooperation, mutuality and work sharing. In each group respondents differed as to whether they favored minimal or more lengthy instructions. They also differed as to whether they followed a consistent approach or one tailored to the needs of the individual analysand. A source of tension lay in an inclination either to remain in the tradition set by Freud or to experiment with different phrasings and timings. The authors give their reasons for choosing to give explicit instructions, requesting associational material beyond thoughts and feelings, and describing resistance as inevitable and a potential source of insight.