(2014). International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 95(5):977-993
(Accepted for publication 23 July 2014)
In this paper the author shows that human beings have two quasi-instinctual primitive tendencies - namely, the to confess and the to judge (to condemn or to absolve). These are originally and become during the course of the .
The to judge is a natural consequence of the to confess. These two tendencies are intensified by the analytic situation. The patient has a to confess to the analyst and to himself, and likewise the analyst has a to confess to himself and to the patient. The patient therefore has a to judge himself as good or bad and to judge the analyst as good or bad while, on the other hand, the analyst has a to judge himself as good or bad and to judge the patient as good or bad.
The task of analysis is to make both patient and analyst of their to confess and to judge (to condemn or to absolve). The to judge in the analyst, particularly if , may give rise to mistakes in , , treatment, and the assessment of analysability.
The requirement of analytic in the analyst constantly conflicts with his to judge. If we are profoundly involved in our patient's dramatic , we are bound to pass a ( or absolution); however, when we judge, we are not neutral and therefore become incapable of intellectual of the patient's . Conversely, if we do not judge, we are neutral, but are then relatively uninvolved in the patient's and are hence virtually unable to achieve emotional .
The author attempts to show that cannot and must not be a preconstituted attitude in the analyst, but can and must be a point of arrival following a profound, intensely felt existential experience based on an attitude of non- and non-absolution.