The Timing of an Interpretation: A Comparative Review of an Aspect of the Theory of Therapeutic Technique

Interpretation in psychoanalysis is often considered to be as much an art as a science. And perhaps the most intuitive aspect of interpretive work, an aspect that is crucial to therapeutic outcome, is the timing of an interpretation. When do we interpret the transference? When do we interpret resistance? How deeply do we interpret? (And by “deep” do we mean highly defended-against material, archaic fantasy, or early life historical events?) When should we simply empathize with the phenomenology of conscious self-experience and when should we confront and challenge resistance to discussing anxiety-laden unconscious conflict? By what criteria do we define an interpretation as premature or perhaps as too late? To what degree is the timing of an interpretation dependent on the presence of a prerequisite atmosphere of safety? How do we assess whether early interpretation of latent negative transference will either strengthen or impair the formation of a working alliance? The answers to these questions are partially based on the analyst's evaluation of the particular dynamics of the individual patient, yet to a large degree the answers to such questions derive from the analyst's theoy of therapeutic technique. Although timing is in many respects dependent on the analyst's intuitive grasp of a unique analytic moment and is informed by past experience conducting analyses, the analyst's theory of therapeutic technique provides a preconscious sensibility that quietly guides the analyst's intuition as to the proper timing of an interpretation. In other words, intuition is partially derivative of a preconscious theory-derived rationale. It is preconscious in the sense that one's theory of therapeutic technique is not, for the most part, subject