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.
March 17, 1993
Dr. Gill discusses our paper from the perspective of his enthusiasm for a social-constructivist paradigm. He proposes that neutrality refers primarily to the mutually interactive nature of the psychoanalytic situation. He finds in our manuscript evidence of agreement with his views in our recognition of the complexity of the interaction, especially as part of our attempt to separate the issue of neutrality from the analyst's therapeutic intent. A link between his ideas and ours exists in our viewing neutrality as not precluding the exploration of as many determinants of mental conflict as possible, including those inherent in and activated by the mutual interaction in the psychoanalytic situation. This includes the analyst's attention to his or her countertransference, as well as to the analysand's conflicted efforts to perceive the analyst. It would not be possible critically to explore the merits and liabilities of a social-constructivist point of view in response to Dr. Gill's letter. Our definition of neutrality focuses on linking neutrality to the interpretive process in relation to mental conflict. Our aim in doing so is to free neutrality from the constraints of applying it to aspects of the psychoanalytic situation better understood