Resistance: How Do We Think Of It In The Twenty-First Century?

Arnold Cooper, chairing the panel, placed the concept of resistance within the current pluralistic landscape of psychoanalysis. He noted that while one segment of the psychoanalytic community views resistance analysis as crucial, other segments (e.g., the object relational, the intersubjectivist, and the interpersonal) may view resistance as an outdated concept connoting an adversarial and authoritative stance. Using a graph captioned “Trends in Usage of the Term Resistance,” Cooper noted the increasing occurrence of references to resistance in two major psychoanalytic journals since the 1980s (JAPA and the International Journal of Psychoanalysis). Whatever the challenge to its conceptual utility, the term is in one sense very much alive.

Cooper posed a series of questions that served to position resistance in relation to issues of contemporary interest: transference and intrapsychic conflict; the narcissistic threat of interpretation; the sense of intimate struggle within the treatment relationship; and anxiety about change, loss, the unknown, emptiness, etc. He concluded by asking whether a concept that raises so many questions can still serve a useful purpose.

Eslee Samberg, the panel's reporter, presented a brief literature review from an historical perspective. She emphasized that over time the understanding of resistance has reflected each writer's conceptualization of what psychoanalysis is and how it works. Starting with Freud, she noted his early efforts to unravel the relation between transference and resistance and his recognition that transference is both