Scientific Meetings of the Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis

Abstract

Dr. Imber began this scientific meeting by discussing the notion of the analyst’s authority as it has been conceptualized in both classical Freudian theory and interpersonal/relational theory. As she explained, classical Freudian analysts have been criticized by their contemporary counterparts from the interpersonal/relational school for abusing their authority by suggesting that they know what their patients need and in which direction therapy should go. Traditionally, classical Freudian analysts have emphasized the centrality of interpreting a patient’s unconscious conflicts in order to achieve insight and understanding. Little consideration was given to the influence of the analyst in this process. Dr. Imber pointed out that interpersonal and relational analysts have been major critics of this oversight. They have contributed greatly to the now commonly held view that analysts continually influence their patients, although this influence may be inadvertent and out of the immediate awareness of both parties. According to Dr. Imber, interpersonal and relational analysts have historically accused classical Freudians of subscribing to the belief that they are the ultimate sources of authority in the analytic dyad. Classical Freudians have been criticized frequently for operating in analysis as if they are the ones who really know what is going on with their patients. They assume to have greater knowledge of their patients than do the patients themselves, and true therapeutic action can only take place as a function of their enlightening patients by interpreting unconscious conflicts. Interpersonal and relational analysts have disputed the notion that there is only one path available to secure desired change in therapy and that this path is designed and paved predominantly by analysts without much input from their patients. In Dr. Imber’s view, out of these critiques of classical Freudian theory and practice, interpersonal and relational analysts have attempted to democratize the therapeutic relationship by fostering greater mutuality and shared authority. Rather than assume a singular mode of therapeutic action, they have suggested that there are multiple paths along which an effective analysis may go.