Replies to Bengt Warren

In his lively discussion, Dr Warren distinguishes between political and psychological neutrality. As he describes political neutrality, the intention is to avoid involvement, but psychoanalytic neutrality aims “to create involvement both on an interpersonal and an intrapsychic level.” I must concur that so great a difference in meanings is well worth our attention. In fact, as Dr Warren points out, we agree about almost everything. But if the dictionary meaning of neutrality is “noninvolvement” then why insist that the label be applied to a strategy so differently intended? Perhaps there is a political issue at stake here, after all.

Techniques of “neutrality” are designed to stimulate involvement in the other guy. The hope is to induce openness in the patient and facilitate self-concealment by the analyst. Whether or not these procedures succeed, what is called “neutrality” is an analytic manipulation that imposes a provokingly one-sided set of rules. Its efficacy rests on the inclination of most human beings to orient themselves in relation to the presence of other human beings. When one person withholds response that elicits greater efforts by the other to construe the probable nature of the inaccessible one. Such construals by the patient are likely to be regarded by orthodox analysts as “transference” or attributions neurotically replicating past experiences without basis in current realities.

“Transference” interpretations of this sort neglect to recognize that the silence of analysts does not make them invisible. Even before coming to my office, the patient knows that I am male, university educated, specifically in psychology, and also draws inferences about my social position from my name and address. Since most patients, too, have been told something about me by the referral source, or even are mental health professionals with access to the grapevine, ofttimes they have information about my history. That is not to mention all the further clues to be gleaned o