Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To report problems to PEP-Web…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Help us improve PEP Web. If you find any problem, click the Report a Problem link located at the bottom right corner of the website.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Stolorow, R.D. (1990). Converting Psychotherapy to Psychoanalysis: A Critique of the Underlying Assumptions. Psychoanal. Inq., 10(1):119-130.

(1990). Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 10(1):119-130

Converting Psychotherapy to Psychoanalysis: A Critique of the Underlying Assumptions

Robert D. Stolorow, Ph.D.

Underlying any consideration of the question of converting psychotherapy to psychoanalysis is a set of assumptions about what constitute the defining features that distinguish psychoanalysis from other modes of therapy. In this paper, I examine four such assumptions — or, as I prefer to call them, myths — about the essential nature of a psychoanalytic process.

1. The Myth of the Neutral Analyst

It is widely assumed that one feature distinguishing psychoanalysis from other therapies is the analyst's consistent adherence to a stance of “technical neutrality.” Indeed, according to Kernberg (Panel, 1987), it is the degree of the psychotherapist's deviation from technical neutrality that will determine the ease with which successful conversion to psychoanalysis can be achieved: the more neutral the therapist, the easier the shift will be (p. 720).

[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 © 2020, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.