The Analyst's Silence1

Silence in psychoanalysis has been discussed in the literature from a variety of vantage points. Very little, however, has been written about the analyst's silence. (1, 8, 9)

In the symposium, “The Silent Patient,” the most extensive survey and study on silence in psychoanalytic treatment, Zeligs (18) noted that “the role which the analyst's silence plays in the psychoanalytic process and the manifold meanings and hidden affects which emerge when this basic prerogative of the analyst is carefully investigated, in the light of present-day ego psychology and theory of technique, have not yet been systematically formulated.” He pointed out that since Freud, psychoanalysis has been viewed as a “talking-cure” and, hence, discussions of the nonverbal communication in analysis have been scarce.

Our purpose is to survey the relevant literature, examine the therapeutic effect of the analyst's silence at various stages of treatment under varying conditions of transference and resistance, and arrive at conclusions concerning a “therapeutic technique of silence.”

The role of the analyst as an essentially silent listener and observer is generally assumed. The effect of the analyst's silence has been viewed as promoting the analytic process by allowing the patient to talk, follow his own associations and use the ambiguity of the analyst for projections and fantasies. (1, 7) This basic silence has also been in consonance with Freud's principle of denying gratifications. (5) Menninger has observed that the analyst's restraint and silence will induce desirable dissatisfactions and uncertainties in the patient, who will then be likely to communicate his wishes and feelings toward the analyst. As the patient regresses, he makes the analyst the object of his fantasies—an ultimate aid in the lifting of repressions. (11)

Both Menninger (11) and Weisman, (16) however, warn that nonresponsiveness and silence of the analyst might frustrate a patient too severely, causing him to feel ignored, ex