Variations in Technique1

Having listened with keen interest to the discussion on the various aspects of classical technique, I too should like to contribute to this very important problem of variations in the technique of analysis.

I shall speak very briefly, limiting myself to some of the more outstanding points of my observations on this subject, since I have already dealt with the problem of transference neurosis (Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 38, 1957, 196–203). Moreover, I shall have more to say on this subject when I give my contribution to the Panel Discussion on Ego Deformation. (Published in this volume.)

Like all other analysts, I have always applied, and continue to apply, the fundamental rules laid down by Freud in his writings on technique. Like many analysts, however, I have come to the conclusion that these rules constitute only a framework within which the extraordinary experience which an analytical treatment represents—for me always a new source of wonder—begins, develops, declines and ends.

It has been possible, for instance, for me, as for all of us, to observe that the particular type of analyst-analysand relationship established within this framework reproduces first of all the very relationship the patient has with the outside world, and then renews it in order to correct and improve it. But what strikes one is that each patient experiences this relationship in his own individual way. And this observation has gradually shown me that to apply the same rules indiscriminately to all patients can be a mistake and can jeopardize the result of the treatment. I have thus come to realize the need for establishing certain variations in technique when a given case calls for such a course.

We are all convinced, for instance, of the primordial importance of the rule which demands of the analyst an attitude of 'neutrality' in the treatment as well as towards the patient himself. And we know that if we depart from this the treatment is in jeopardy, for the patient may be tempted to sett