DECONSTRUCTING THE MYTH OF
THE NEUTRAL ANALYST:AN ALTERNATIVE FROM
INTERSUBJECTIVE SYSTEMS THEORYRobert D. Stolorow, Ph.D.
Self Psychology Page | Intersubjective Systems Forum
PRECIS
In this paper Stolorow gathers together and expands upon his previous criticisms of the idea of analytic neutrality, emphasizing in particular the illusory and defensive aspects of the doctrine of neutrality as well as its intricate mythological under pinnings. He then proposes an alternative analytic stance derived from intersubjective systems theory. He begins first with a critique of four conceptions of neutrality that have been prominent in the psychoanalytic literature: (1) neutrality as abstinence (Freud), (2) neutrality as anonymity (Freud), (3) neutrality as equidistance (A. Freud), and (4) neutrality as empathy (Kohut).
It is argued that the stance of abstinence is not neutral since it is an expression of a deeply held belief system. Furthermore, the purposeful frustration of wishes and needs could never be experienced by the patient as a neutral stance. The assumption that the analyst can remain anonymous denies the essentially interactive nature of the analytic process. The analyst is constantly disclosing aspects of his or her psychological organization to the patient, impressions which, in turn, are decisive in codetermining the development of the transference. A stance equidistant from the id, the ego, and the superego is not neutral, since it too is rooted in a value-laden theoretical belief system--the tripartite model of the mind. Interpretations offered from this metaphorical point of equidistance encourage the patient to adopt the analyst's beliefs about the structure of the mind. A stance of empathic immersion is similarly grounded in a theoretical belief system, one emphasizing the role of emotional responsiveness in facilitating the development of the sense of self. Such a positioning could not be experienced by the patient as a neutral one, meeting as it does deep longings to be understood. Furthermore, to expect that an analyst can enter a patient's subjective world and gaze upon it with pure and innocent eyes is tantamount to requiring the analyst to banish his or her own psychological organization from the analytic system, an impossible feat.
The four variants of The Myth of the Neutral Analyst are seen as being closely intertwined with a number of other interrelated myths that have been influential in shaping the traditional analytic stance: The Myth of Interpretation Without Suggestion, The Myth of Uncontaminated Transference, The Myth of Objectivity, and The Myth of the Isolated Mind. It is argued that once the psychoanalytic situation is recognized as a dyadic intersubjective system of reciprocal mutual influence, to which the organizing activities of both patient and analyst make ongoing, codetermining contributions, the concept of neutrality is revealed to be an illusion, a form of defensive grandiosity averting painful vulnerabilities evoked by engagement in an analytic process. From this perspective, interpretations are always suggestions, transference is always contaminated, and analysts are never objective.
As an alternative to neutrality in its several guises Stolorow proposes the investigatory stance of sustained empathic-introspective inquiry. Such inquiry seeks to illuminate the principles unconsciously organizing the patient's experience (empathy), the principles unconsciously organizing the anlyst's experience (introspective), and the oscillating psychological field created by the interplay between the two (intersubjectivity). Inquiry of this kind requires the analyst's continual reflection on the inevitable involvement of his or her own personal subjectivity and theoretical assumptions in the ongoing investigation. Such inquiry neither obfuscates the asymmetry of the patient-analyst relationship nor prescribes any form of self-expressive behavior for the analyst.