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.
Aron observes that the trend away from an exclusively intrapsychic model of mental life, and toward a more relational model, has been accompanied by a neglect of the method of free association. Relational models of the mind see both patient and analyst as the source of transference, and associations as responsive to the situation. This is in contrast to the traditional intrapsychic model, in which transference
is central only insofar as it helps the analyst to interpret resistances to free association, to move from manifest to latent content. The traditional model, as exemplified by Arlow, uses the method of free association as a "rubric under which to hide the extent to which the analyst affects every aspect of the patient's associations." Gill, on the other hand, abandons the emphasis on free association in favor of an interactive model that assumes that interpreting the hidden references to the analyst always takes priority. Many interactionists wrongly reject the free association method because they see it as based on the mistaken idea that the analyst is not a participant—which they (and Aron) attribute to drive theory. Aron's position is that the method is not bound to drive theory. In his view, there is no "mind" that can be studied in isolation, but the method of free association is useful as a way to study "mind" in a specific interpersonal context. Attention to the patient's associations provides information that may be pre-empted by the imposition of the analyst's theories, e.g., that his or her subjective experience is an accurate representation of the patient's experience.