Chapter 25. The Unobtrusive Analyst

We finished Chapter 22 with the two forms of regression but left undiscussed the technical problems as to what the analyst can do to avoid, as far as humanly possible, any risk of a malignant regression and assure the development of a benign form. The discussion in the preceding chapter gave us some general directives on how this could be done. The more the analyst's technique and behaviour are suggestive of omniscience and omnipotence, the greater is the danger of a malignant form of regression. On the other hand, the more the analyst can reduce the inequality between his patient and himself, and the more unobtrusive and ordinary he can remain in his patient's eyes, the better are the chances of a benign form of regression.

Thus we have arrived at one of the most important problems of modern analytic technique, which is how much of the two therapeutic agents — interpretation and object relationship — should be used in any one case; when, in what proportion, and in what succession should they be used? This problem is important in every case, but is especially acute in the treatment of a regressed patient when the work has reached the area of the basic fault. Since, as we have found, words have only a limited and uncertain usefulness in these areas, it seems to follow that object relationship is the more important and more reliable therapeutic factor during these periods, while in the states after the patient has emerged from his regression, interpretations will regain their importance.

The question now arises as to what sort of technique the analyst can use to create the object relationship which, in his opinion, is the most suitable for that particular patient; or, in other words, will probably have the best therapeutic effect. The first analyst who experimented with these effects fairly systematically was Ferenczi. Viewed from this angle his ‘active technique’ and his ‘principle of relaxation’ were deliberate attempts at creating object relationships