(1994). Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 4(4):549-582
Gratification and Provision in Psychoanalysis Should We Get Rid of “The Rule of Abstinence”?
My thesis is that the rule of , which is currently taught in seminars and defended as integral to developing a , in fact, interferes with and should be replaced with the concept of . The rule did not accomplish Freud's original aim for it, which was to be the motivating force impelling the patient to work analytically. Not only is it unnecessary, but it has been detrimental: skewing, disrupting, and prolonging analysis. In addition, much is not analyzed that could have been except for the rule of , which essentially closes off whole areas from analysis.
Despite the emphasis on deprivation or non-gratification, there is much provision and gratification in traditional analysis, as well as in all theoretical models of analysis. I demonstrate that unintended gratifications or provisions are supplied in even the most classical analysis. I review the literature and show that we are talking about degrees of provision, gratification, or both all the time. Logically, then, we should determine what is the , that is, that which facilitates and does not obstruct the analysis. Much clinical is presented to illustrate provisions that facilitate the analysis and seeming-provisions
Dr. Lindon is Supervising and Analyst and Founding Member, Institute of Contemporary , Los Angeles, California; Supervising and Analyst and Past President, Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute; and Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, UCLA School of Medicine.
A earlier version of this paper was presented at the January 27, 1993 Scientific Meeting of the Institute of Contemporary and at the 16th Annual Conference on the Psychology of , Toronto, , October 28-31, 1993.
I am grateful to Drs. Louis Breger, Arthur Malin, Sheila Namir, Richard Rosenstein, and Robert Stolorow for their helpful critiques of an earlier version of this paper.
© 1994 The Analytic Press
- 549 -
that obstruct. We should abandon the rule of and should replace it with the concept of .