Commentary

In the analytic situation two parties meet and communicate. The outcome of this exchange depends on both parties. On the side of the analysand our efforts are limited to cases that appear to be “analyzable.” But on the other hand, on the side of the analyst, various styles can be encountered. This may serve not only to remind us of the personal equation of each analyst, but to occasion our reflection on the different attitudes defined by varying strategies regarding the direction of the cure. Such strategies depend on one's conception of the psychoanalytic process. This debate is no longer only theoretical, as it is now widely accepted that the analyst's basic attitude may influence the course and result of an analysis.

Warren Poland's paper is itself an act of witnessing and otherness. Reading his work, I could not help thinking about it as his way of evaluating some of the directions of today's analytic literature and, maybe, to stand aside after having thought of the different streams that compose it.

To understand the current situation, it is necessary to have an historical overview of the different ways in which the analytic relationship has been conceived. We have indirect evidence that Freud himself was an authoritarian personality; this is obvious before the birth of psychoanalysis, as is evident in Studies on Hysteria, and even after he discovered the psychoanalytic method. Freud's writings show that he did not himself display the attitude of neutrality he advocated. Here the reader need only be reminded of Freud's case of the young homosexual girl, though other examples may be cited. This attitude led, late in his career, to his dispute with Ferenczi, who complained of the coldness, rigidity, and artificial character of the recommended analytic