Interpretive neutrality.

Bernard Apfelbaum

doi:10.1177/00030651050530030101

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16187639

Interpretive neutrality.

Bernard Apfelbaum

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Published clinical examples are used to show how both contemporary ego psychological approaches and the relational approach are pre-structural, in the sense that they implicitly appeal to Freud's earlier, layering model. In this framework, defense and defended-against are seen as categorically different, with the consequence that both interpretation and the goals of analysis are necessarily normative. Viewed in this perspective, interpretive neutrality represents an unrealistic absence of influence. This perspective can also account for the widespread pessimism regarding exclusive reliance on interpretation and the consequent belief in the need to rely on the impact of the analytic relationship.

Explore related subjects

Countertransference Defense Mechanisms Freudian Theory Humans Narcissism Physician-Patient Relations Psychoanalytic Interpretation Psychoanalytic Therapy Transference, Psychology Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Bernard Apfelbaum. 2005. Interpretive neutrality.. https://doi.org/10.1177/00030651050530030101

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

The concept of objective countertransference and its role in a two-person psychology.

Objective countertransference comprises those feelings the analyst experiences with the patient that are repetitions of feelings from the patient's life outside the analysis. It is viewed as being induced by the patient and is understood in the context of the patient's life, not the analyst's. The concept is used to understand the relationship of some of the analyst's feelings to recurrent interpersonal patterns in the patient's life. It has often been viewed as being incompatible with a two-person psychology. Here, in contrast, it is argued that objective countertransference is only one current within the analyst's total emotional response to the patient, and that it should be conceptualized as a component of a broader two-person psychology. However, the use of objective countertransference as a conceptual tool highlights aspects of the analytic relationship that differ from those emphasized in current two-person models. A case example is analyzed from both perspectives to illustrate their similarities and differences. Although the concept of objective countertransference can enrich the analyst's understanding of certain dimensions of the analytic relationship, it is not a theory of technique and it is not wedded to any particular style of psychoanalytic intervention.

Countertransference↗

PubMed2006

The analyst's body as tuning fork: embodied resonance in countertransference.

This paper examines the phenomenon of embodied countertransference: where the analyst experiences a somatic reaction rather than the more common countertransference responses of thoughts, feelings, images, fantasies and dreams. Discussion of clinical material considers neurotic and syntonic aspects. The analogy is made of resonance with a tuning fork. Several questions are posed: Why does countertransference resonate in the bodies of some analysts but not all? Why do those analysts who are sensitive to this, experience it with some patients but not with others? And what are the conditions which are conducive to producing somatic responses? It proposes that somatic reactions are more likely to occur when a number of conditions come together: when working with patients exhibiting borderline, psychotic or severe narcissistic elements; where there has been early severe childhood trauma; and where there is fear of expressing strong emotions directly. In addition another theoretical factor is proposed, namely the typology of the analyst.

Countertransference↗

PubMed2006

Countertransference in defense enactments.

A clinical term is introduced to capture a defense that develops with the patient's deepening but fleeting awareness of painful transference feelings. The analyst's attention to countertransference in such situations is central to the analysis of these defenses. An attempt is made to distinguish defense enactments from other types of defenses, and to differentiate the analyst's countertransference reaction to this type of defense from countertransference reactions that might appear similar. The reasons for this dynamic in the interpersonal space are explored, and a clinical example that describes this phenomenon in the analytic moment is given.

Countertransference↗