Reflections on the analyst's self‐disclosure

Hanly, Charles

doi:10.1080/07351699809534211

Cited by 11 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bollas (1987) indicated some of the ways in which he conveyed his subjective impressions to patients (p. 206), but he also noted, "Any disclosure on the analyst's part of how he feels must be experienced by the patient as a legitimate and natural part of the analytic process" (p. 211). In this context, Hanly's (1998) cautions deserve attention: self-revelations ("I am concerned that . .…”

Section: Personal Experiencesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…It is especially in this connection that new guidelines about the analyst's 'self-revelations' and other departures from familiar technical precepts must be evaluated as they are an important means by which the analysand assesses safety and danger" (p. 382). And Hanly (1998) adds: "The question of the analyst's self-disclosure is psychologically and logically tied to the question of the analyst's capacity for neutrality. If neutrality is, in principle, impossible on psychological or epistemological grounds, countertransferential self-disclosure is inevitable" (p. 553).…”

Section: Disclosure and The Real Relationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Problem of Self-Disclosure in Psychoanalysis

Meissner

2002

J Am Psychoanal Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The problem of self-disclosure is explored in relation to currently shifting paradigms of the nature of the analytic relation and analytic interaction. Relational and intersubjective perspectives emphasize the role of self-disclosure as not merely allowable, but as an essential facilitating aspect of the analytic dialogue, in keeping with the role of the analyst as a contributing partner in the process. At the opposite extreme, advocates of classical anonymity stress the importance of neutrality and abstinence. The paper seeks to chart a course between unconstrained self-disclosure and absolute anonymity, both of which foster misalliances. Self-disclosure is seen as at times contributory to the analytic process, and at times deleterious. The decision whether to self-disclose, what to disclose, and when and how, should be guided by the analyst's perspective on neutrality, conceived as a mental stance in which the analyst assesses and decides what, at any given point, seems to contribute to the analytic process and the patient's therapeutic benefit. The major risk in self-disclosure is the tendency to draw the analytic interaction into the real relation between analyst and patient, thus diminishing or distorting the therapeutic alliance, mitigating transference expression, and compromising therapeutic effectiveness.

show abstract

Section: Personal Experiencesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Disclosure and The Real Relationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Problem of Self-Disclosure in Psychoanalysis

Meissner

2002

J Am Psychoanal Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This appears to be what Hanly (1998) describes as a pseudodeliberate self-revelation (p. 552); it may also be described as a countertransference resistance to interpretation. This appears to be what Hanly (1998) describes as a pseudodeliberate self-revelation (p. 552); it may also be described as a countertransference resistance to interpretation.…”

Section: Clinical Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Hanly (1998) describes this type of analyst activity as a pseudodeliberate self-disclosure-"one that the analyst believes to be deliberate but that in fact is motivated by a resistance, in the analyst, to carrying on the work of interpretation, that is, by a countertransference, in Freud's . Neutrality and abstinence provide a mental space where the analyst can "rehearse," by trial thinking in fantasy, any intentions, wishes, and fantasies about a patient without compromising the latter's safety.…”

Section: Safety Neutrality and Abstinencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, the impact of the patient on the analyst was noted by Ferenczi as early as the 1920s (Jacobs 1999). Previous contributions to this subject have centered on philosophical and theoretical critiques of Renik's view of subjectivity and transference-countertransference (e.g., Cavell 1998;Hanly 1998Hanly ,1999Louw and Pitman 2001;Psychoanalytic Inquiry 1998), analyst neutrality and authority (e.g., Adler and Bachant 1996;Eagle, Wolitzky, and Wakefield 2001;Kernberg 1996), the interactional and technical aspects of analysis as conceptualized by the intersubjective school (e.g., Bachant and Adler 1997;Busch 1998;Eagle, Wolitzky, and Wakefield 2001;Hanly 1998;Jacobs 1991Jacobs , 1999, and the relation between neutrality, abstinence, and the therapeutic alliance (Meissner 1996(Meissner , 2002. Previous contributions to this subject have centered on philosophical and theoretical critiques of Renik's view of subjectivity and transference-countertransference (e.g., Cavell 1998;Hanly 1998Hanly ,1999Louw and Pitman 2001;Psychoanalytic Inquiry 1998), analyst neutrality and authority (e.g., Adler and Bachant 1996;Eagle, Wolitzky, and Wakefield 2001;Kernberg 1996), the interactional and technical aspects of analysis as conceptualized by the intersubjective school (e.g., Bachant and Adler 1997;Busch 1998;Eagle, Wolitzky, and Wakefield 2001;Hanly 1998;Jacobs 1991Jacobs , 1999, and the relation between neutrality, abstinence, and the therapeutic alliance (Meissner 1996(Meissner , 2002.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analytic Neutrality, Anonymity, Abstinence, and Elective Self-Disclosure

Shill

2004

J Am Psychoanal Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent contributions to the psychoanalytic literature propose new ways of understanding analytic neutrality, anonymity, abstinence, and self-disclosure. They advocate elective self-disclosure by the analyst as an antidote to the allegedly game-playing quality of transference and resistance analysis. The analytic relationship, they assert, becomes unreal when attempts are made to observe the principles of neutrality and abstinence. Both are seen as ill-conceived because of the irreducible subjectivity and unwarranted authority of the analyst. These relational and interactional views are criticized because (1) they ignore the fact that transference and resistance analysis have from Freud onward been accepted as minimal criteria qualifying a clinical process as psychoanalytic; (2) elective self-disclosure carries metapsychological implications dismissing not only Freud's theory of motivation but motivation as a basic feature of human personality; (3) they do not recognize interpersonal relations as mental events and so do not consider the ego's ability to create intrapsychic representations of object relations; (4) elective self-disclosures within the empathic parameters of the analytic situation are themselves unreal compared to the reality of the patient's experience with other objects. Abstinence and neutrality as ideals facilitate maintenance of an internal holding environment or container for the analyst's countertransference.

show abstract

Therapists' Disclosures of Their Sexual Feelings to Their Clients

Marshall¹,

Milton²

2014

Sexual Attraction in Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reflections on the analyst's self‐disclosure

Cited by 11 publications

References 1 publication

The Problem of Self-Disclosure in Psychoanalysis

The Problem of Self-Disclosure in Psychoanalysis

Analytic Neutrality, Anonymity, Abstinence, and Elective Self-Disclosure

Therapists' Disclosures of Their Sexual Feelings to Their Clients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About