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 rule of neutrality epitomizes the psychoanalytic method of treatment. Even within the myriad of contemporary analytic schools the attitude that analysts assume about the efficacy of neutrality varies to a considerable extent. Indeed, the degree to which a given psychoanalyst chooses to employ neutrality deter mines that analyst's conception of psychoanalysis.
Given the significance of this rule, one would assume that general agreement is shared about its definition. I shall argue that our understanding about the nature of neutrality has changed since it was introduced by Freud, and that the efficacy of this technical rule has diverged significantly from the way that Freud employed it. The practical import of this development can hardly be overemphasized—it lies at the heart of how “classical” psychoanalytic technique is conceived.
In order to situate my discussion in the current situation I shall begin by citing examples of how neutrality is conceived by representative members of the analytic community, comparing and contrasting their understanding of this technical principle with Freud's. Then I shall review what Freud actually said about neutrality by referring to the texts where he explored this concept. I
Dr. Thompson is Founder and Director of Free Association, Inc., San Francisco; on the Clinical Faculty of The Wright Institute, Berkeley, and on the Adjunct Faculty of the California School of Professional Psychology, Berkeley/Alameda, CA.
shall conclude by highlighting some of the errors that have been committed when applying neutrality and the misconceptions on which those errors were founded, including the tendency to confuse neutrality with the rule of abstinence.