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 The Mystery of Things, Christopher Bollas explores the nature of the psychoanalytic method, particularly the process of free association, which he calls Freud's “greatest accomplishment” (p. 172). According to Bollas, it is highly unfortunate that free association has been “marginalised” (p. 70), since it is the principal way that psychoanalysis “can accomplish its aims” (p. 69).
Attempting to explore this issue in a historical context, Bollas differentiates “classical continental European psychoanalysis” from “Anglo-American classicism” (p. 185). He argues that the latter, which embraced ego psychology, undermined part of the core of the psychoanalytic method:
“Evenly suspended attentiveness” seemed to suffer a witless dismantling of its meaning: “evenly” became “even,” as in equanimous or calm; “suspended” became “removed” or “detached”; “attentiveness” became “attentive.” Removed
Page 883from Freud's original context, these words now meant that the analyst was to be even-minded, suspended from his patient and very attentive. [p. 185]
Bollas suggests that the current emphasis upon countertransference by some analysts in America is, in part, an attempt to resurrect the heart of Freud's method.
The author emphasizes the importance of bearing with the formless quality of a patient's associations before making interpretations. He is very much aware of the difficulty of maintaining this position, since it challenges the temptation to rely too heavily on established theory. Bollas is especially critical of those analysts who interpret frequently within the same paradigm. He suggests that in aligning themselves with one of the major schools, they tend to comprehend one small, though often significant, part of the patient's inner world. He indicates that analysts should allow evidence to accumulate slowly, “without forming a premature idea of what is taking place” (p. 186). In this context, he compares the analyst to a detective who must continually search for clues before arriv