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.
Joseph Schachter opened the panel by reminding those present that spontaneity and restraint stand in dialectical relation to each other and have been present in our discipline from the beginning. He defined spontaneity as characterizing those acts of the analyst that are unplanned, involuntary, impulsive, and without premeditation; restraint as characterizing those that are planned, deliberate, and voluntary.
Noting that both Freud and Merton Gill believed that neutrality does not proscribe spontaneity, Schachter outlined the advantages and disadvantages of both relational possibilities. The analyst's spontaneity may express authenticity, facilitate intimacy, and make the analyst more accessible as an object of identification. However, spontaneity can also be disastrous, as when an analyst unthinkingly burdens a patient with his or her own needs or desires. The analyst's restraint maintains the boundaries that support the authority necessary for the analyst to maintain neutrality and promote the patient's autonomy. Restraint may, however, inhibit intimacy and fail to protect the patient from the analyst's subtle communication of judgments and preferences.
First stating that the analyst must consciously or unconsciously choose one or the other response, but not both simultaneously, and that he or she is responsible for the choice made, Schachter posed a number of questions for the panel to consider. Is our capacity to modify our behavior with patients enhanced if we learn under what conditions we become spontaneous or restrained? What are the problems associated