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.
In this essay, Gill compares the interpersonal paradigm to the drive-discharge paradigm with special reference to the participation of the analyst. The literature contends, according to Gill, that the inter-personalist sees the analyst as significantly involved, and the Freudian holds that his participation is minor. To prove this latter theorem false, Gill first attacks the analyst-as-blank-screen caricature of Freudian analysis. Secondly, he points out that Sullivan did not specifically suggest that a major participation on the part of the analyst was a necessary part of the interpersonal paradigm. Gill then goes on to discuss how much the analyst ought to be involved and how much he is inevitably involved. His definition of the transference-countertransference transaction as the primary concern of the analytic endeavor forms the basis for his comments on the relationship between participation and technique. He also elaborates on his guiding principles for technique. As he concludes, Gill touches on issues such as how revealing the analyst should be of his own feelings, how much of the past should be explored, and how crucial the relationship is to bringing about the change. In summation, he takes a broad position that both insight and new experience play a role in bringing about change in psychoanalysis. Gill deduces that the interpersonal paradigm (in which he now includes himself because of his special focus on the transference-countertransference transaction) does not necessarily imply a conviction that the analyst must play a major role in the analytic interaction.