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 timely article, Kenneth Frank makes use of my work on interpretation and subjectivity as a foil to set off and highlight his own position in contrast to mine. Although there are some ways in which I feel misunderstood by Frank, it is nevertheless intensely gratifying to think that my previous contributions have been useful in furthering our collective conversation, an attempt to formulate a relational approach to questions of psychoanalytic technique, particularly the issue of self-disclosure.
I do believe that there is a genuine difference between Frank and myself, but I do not think that it has so much to do with our attitudes toward or belief in the efficacy of self-disclosure, as I too believe that self-disclosures may at times be used quite productively. The difference between us lies in our divergent approaches to formulating a relational theory of psychoanalytic technique. Frank suggests that “analytic anonymity is not an integral element of two-person theories, but is inimical to them.” Instead of anonymity, he recommends “a process that utilizes countertransference directly through collaborative attempts to explicate specific interactions with the patient.” Frank is advocating a specific technical stance, namely, the active use of self-disclosure.
My emphasis, by way of contrast, has not been on either advocating or disparaging self-disclosure; rather, it has been on eschewing any singular technique as the optimal psychoanalytic method. The articles of mine that Frank cites (Aron, 1991, 1992) were not primarily about self-disclosure—they were about the patient's experience of the analyst's