The word and concept of neutrality play an important but confusing role in the history of psychoanalysis. Does neutrality imply indifference? The origin of this ambiguity is traced to the fact that Freud himself never used the word "neutrality" (Neutralitaet) in his own writings. (His term Indifferenz was translated as "neutrality" by Strachey.) The essence of the controversy that has simmered in the psychoanalytic literature ever since is contained in the question: "Is remaining true to the concept of neutrality somehow antithetical to the analyst's genuine involvement with the patient?" In this paper, I examine the feeling and power aspects of the word and suggest that the concept of neutrality becomes clinically useful when the analyst asks himself the question, "Neutral to what?" The analyst's awareness of his motives for recognizing and addressing certain conflicts and for overlooking others is heightened. With three clinical vignettes as illustrations, I explore the role of the concept of neutrality in deepening our understanding of (1) the analytic relationship; (2) The influence, on the conduct of the treatment, of the analyst's goals and theoretical persuasion regarding how the goals are to be achieved. As examples, I use the current debates over the relative value of the analyst's focusing his attention on: (a) the patient's mind in the hour rather than his life outside the hour and, (b) transference over nontransference interpretation. Finally, I emphasize the far-reaching implications of adding an explicit concept of "external reality" to A. Freud's exclusively intrapsychic definition of the "objective" analyst's position of neutrality as equidistant from id, ego, and superego. The addition of this fourth point to the analyst's "compass" widens the analytic field toward which the analyst is neutral. The concept of neutrality with respect to specifiable conflicts is thereby also broadened to include (a) interpersonal conflict within the psychoanalytic relationship and (b) conflict within the analyst. With these explicit additions, the concept of neutrality with respect to conflict becomes congruent with the current emphasis on the nonauthoritarian two-persons aspects of the psychoanalytic relationship, without detracting from the primary analytic goal of deeper understanding of intrapsychic conflict.

No abstract

No abstract

In our view helplessness is a primal, often intolerable feeling. It underlies and intensifies other feelings that are also hard to bear. Both analyst and patients face helplessness, and both resort to defenses, often intensely, in order to avoid it. The intensity of this battle can merit calling it a war. The analyst's war is conducted using distancing, anger, blaming and disparaging as well as by intellectualizing the patient's struggles. Patients then find themselves abandoned and helplessly alone. We analysts, of course, want not to fall into the trap of war, and we try to free ourselves from waging it. A major way we accomplish this is through continuously working, often with the help of analysis and self-analysis, to increase our capacity to maintain our emotional stability in the face of these intensities. We learn to find new forms of awareness, beyond words and ideas. It requires a new understanding of what is threatening to us, which fosters a deeper capacity to empathize with the patient. This helps us to find the psychic, physical and emotional space within ourselves in which to hold our helplessness and other profound affective experiences. In this way we become an increasingly steady resource for our patients as well as for ourselves.

No abstract