7. Rules

Freud compared the rules of psychoanalytic treatment with the rules of chess: both give rise to an infinite variety of moves which are limited only in the opening and closing phases:

Among them there are some which may seem to be petty details, as, indeed, they are. Their justification is that they are simply rules of the game which acquire their importance from their relation to the general plan of the game. I think I am well-advised, however, to call these rules “recommendations” and not to claim any unconditional acceptance for them …. The plasticity of all mental processes and the wealth of determining factors oppose any mechanization of the technique; and they bring it about that a course of action that is as a rule justified may at times prove ineffective, whilst one that is usually mistaken may once in a while lead to the desired end. These circumstances, however, do not prevent us from laying down a procedure for the physician which is effective on the average. (Freud 1913c, p. 123)

The comparison with chess is an obvious one when seeking to illustrate the diversity of the ways in which treatment can be conducted. The complex interactional sequences which, in a certain form, underlie defense or the end game in chess bear similarities to the strategies used in conducting treatment. Recommendations can be formulated which express strategic considerations in the form of rules. The actual rules of play in chess, e.g., those which lay down how the pieces may be moved and which have, as it were, the function of laws, have to be understood differently, since if they are not followed, there is no game at all.

In chess it is simple to differentiate between moves which are against the rules and those which are inexpedient, but in psychoanalysis such distinctions are more difficult. This is due on the one hand to the historical development of psychoanalytic theory and technique, on the other to the different functions that psy