Login
Stolorow, R.D., Atwood, G.E. (1997). Deconstructing The Myth Of The Neutral Analyst: An Alternative From Intersubjective Systems Theory. Psychoanal Q., 66:431-449.

Welcome to PEP Web!

Viewing the full text of this document requires a subscription to PEP Web.

If you are coming in from a university from a registered IP address or secure referral page you should not need to log in. Contact your university librarian in the event of problems.

If you have a personal subscription on your own account or through a Society or Institute please put your username and password in the box below. Any difficulties should be reported to your group administrator.

Username:
Password:

Can't remember your username and/or password? If you have forgotten your username and/or password please click here and log in to the PaDS database. Once there you need to fill in your email address (this must be the email address that PEP has on record for you) and click "Send." Your username and password will be sent to this email address within a few minutes. If this does not work for you please contact your group organizer.

Athens or federation user? Login here.

Not already a subscriber? Order a subscription today.

(1997). Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 66:431-449

Deconstructing The Myth Of The Neutral Analyst: An Alternative From Intersubjective Systems Theory

Robert D. Stolorow, Ph.D. and George E. Atwood, Ph.D. Author Information

A critique is offered of four conceptions of neutrality that have been prominent in the psychoanalytic literature: neutrality as (1) abstinence, (2) anonymity, (3) equidistance, and (4) empathy. It is argued that once the psychoanalytic situation is recognized as an intersubjective system of reciprocal mutual influence, the concept of neutrality is revealed to be an illusion. Hence, interpretations are always suggestions, transference is always contaminated, and analysts are never objective. An alternative to neutrality is found in the investigatory stance of empathic- introspective inquiry. This mode of inquiry is sharply distinguished from the prescribing of self-expressive behavior on the part of analysts, and the distinction is illustrated with a clinical vignette.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2014, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing. Help | About | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Problem

WARNING! This text is printed for the personal use of the subscriber to PEP Web and is copyright to the Journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to copy, distribute or circulate it in any form whatsoever.