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.
More interaction between analyst and patient in psychoanalysis has been advocated since 1925 (Ferenczi and Rank, 1925), but judging by the literature, most analysts abstain from interacting with patients beyond observing, questioning, and interpreting.
I make three points in this paper: (1) Strict adherence to the principle of abstinence makes an analyst wary of interacting with her or his patients; (2) the meaning of abstinence should be revised from drive-discharge terms to the terms of contemporary analytic technique; (3) some of the most effective analysis is done following a conscious suspension or an unconscious lapse of abstinence that leads to an enactment of the transference-countertransference relationship. A case is described to illustrate this final point.
Abstinence is a sine qua non of psychoanalytic technique, permitting analyst and patient to explore overstimulating memories and fantasies by controlling the risk of acting them out, analogous to the way the neurologic inhibition of movement in the dream state protects the dreamer.
Originally proposed by Freud (1915) to prevent overgratification of the libidinal transference, abstinence can be more relevantly described today. We no longer abstain from overgratifying the transference for reasons of drive discharge, but because the playing out and interpretation of unconscious fantasy must be done against a background of containment and reflection in order to maintain the safety of the psychoanalytic situation.