The Analyst's Role, to Interpret or to React?

Not so many years ago we were taught by our training analysts that we were to communicate insight to patients through correct technical interpretations offered in an objective, dispassionate manner. A neutral, emotionless, monotonous tone of voice was considered a virtue. Countertransference feelings or reactions, positive or negative, were bad and were to be eliminated or suppressed. In more recent years, among certain groups, the pendulum has swung almost to the opposite extreme. Any evidence of intellectuality is considered bad and to be avoided or suppressed. It is now fashionable to be free and spontaneous, to react, to mature and grow together with the patient, and to become as much as possible his equal. Discussions and debates are carried on about the correctness or incorrectness of these points of view. These arguments are just as meaningless as debates that once waged so fiercely around the “heredity vs. environment” or “nature vs. nurture” controversy. Unfortunately, we are still seeking simple, one-dimensional rules or generalizations in an area of work so complex that almost no rules bear the test of time.

It is difficult to approach the question of interpretation without reference to the infantile authority problem and its basic influence on the therapist-patient relationship. Much of our confusion results from the failure to distinguish between the two kinds of authority roles in which the therapist is placed. On one hand, the therapist is in reality an authority, an expert in his knowledge about the workings of the mind, especially the unconscious. This may earn for him a healthy respect