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.
The following abstracts are edited versions of English summaries which appeared in Forum and are published with the permission of the journal.
The investigatory perspective of this study is based on the fundamental assumption that it is not only the patient's but also the analyst's silence that shapes the analytic relationship in many ways. The first part of this paper discusses the analyst's silence as an instrument of treatment technique that fulfills various functions. The notion that silence will ensure abstinence and neutrality proves to be erroneous. The second, larger part of the paper focuses on the question of how the analyst's silence may be experienced by the patient. A libidinous silence, creating fusion and concordance, is to be distinguished from a predominantly aggressive-hostile silence; the analyst's silence evokes varied instinctual conflicts, self- and object representations, and different forms of resistance in the patient. By means of a case example the author discusses therapeutic situations in which a stereotypical silence may lead to the analyst's getting lost. Silence as a symbol of death may evoke feelings of uncanniness, destructiveness, and guilt on the part of the patient; the silent analyst becomes the damaged object. The study concludes by describing different therapeutic situations in which the analyst should speak rather than remain silent.