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.
Ever Since Freud abandoned hypnosis, classical analysts have tried to eliminate, or at least reduce, the power of suggestion in their work. In theory, at least, change has traditionally been best achieved through insight and understanding the patient achieves via the analysis, and the undoing of resistance or defenses. Knowledge derived from analysis of the patient's conflicted mental life, particularly as these conflicts play out in the transference-countertransference, leads to the reduction of neurotic suffering. Over the years, technical recommendations such as maintaining neutrality, interpreting from surface to depth, and establishing a working alliance, were intended to minimize the analyst's power and influence (Josephs, 1997). But instead of actually minimizing the analyst's influence, from an interpersonal-relational perspective, it was merely masked and denied.1
Once hypnosis and overt suggestion were eliminated, most classical analysts used their authority to establish the frame, deliver interpretations, and generally oversee the analytic process. Present-day analysts, such as Brenner (1996) and Kernberg (1996), regard their influence on patients as minimal, yet necessary to get the job done. From their perspective, the analyst's influence need not interfere with the direction of an analysis because this is primarily determined by the patient's unconscious conflicts and identifications. There are some contemporary Freudians, however, such as Gray (1994) and his followers (e.g., Busch, 1995), who believe many classical analysts have never fully abandoned the use of suggestion. Gray believes analysts have frequently allowed patients’transference of authority to go unanalyzed, and too often change thus