Deconstructing the Myth of the Neutral Analyst: An Alternative From Intersubjective Systems Theory

Stolorow, Robert D.; Atwood, George E.

doi:10.1080/21674086.1997.11927540

Cited by 59 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Along the same line, after declaiming the usefulness, indeed necessity, of self-disclosure, Stolorow and Atwood (1997) introduce a qualifying note that seems to reintroduce a principle of neutrality as I have been describing:…”

Section: Disclosure In Relation To the Alliance And Neutralitymentioning

confidence: 94%

The Problem of Self-Disclosure in Psychoanalysis

Meissner

2002

J Am Psychoanal Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The problem of self-disclosure is explored in relation to currently shifting paradigms of the nature of the analytic relation and analytic interaction. Relational and intersubjective perspectives emphasize the role of self-disclosure as not merely allowable, but as an essential facilitating aspect of the analytic dialogue, in keeping with the role of the analyst as a contributing partner in the process. At the opposite extreme, advocates of classical anonymity stress the importance of neutrality and abstinence. The paper seeks to chart a course between unconstrained self-disclosure and absolute anonymity, both of which foster misalliances. Self-disclosure is seen as at times contributory to the analytic process, and at times deleterious. The decision whether to self-disclose, what to disclose, and when and how, should be guided by the analyst's perspective on neutrality, conceived as a mental stance in which the analyst assesses and decides what, at any given point, seems to contribute to the analytic process and the patient's therapeutic benefit. The major risk in self-disclosure is the tendency to draw the analytic interaction into the real relation between analyst and patient, thus diminishing or distorting the therapeutic alliance, mitigating transference expression, and compromising therapeutic effectiveness.

show abstract

Section: Disclosure In Relation To the Alliance And Neutralitymentioning

confidence: 94%

The Problem of Self-Disclosure in Psychoanalysis

Meissner

2002

J Am Psychoanal Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a therapeutic concept, neutrality made its debut as early as 1912 when Freud stated that the "doctor should be opaque to his patients and, like a mirror, should show them nothing but what is shown to him" (Greben & Lesser, 1975, p. 625). While the scope of this article is relational in nature, it is important to understand that many of the dimensions inherent in neutrality-like the objective, detached observer-originated outside of systems thinking, extending through decades of psychoanalytic practice (Scaturo, 2005;Stolorow & Atwood, 1997). While many of the original ideas concerning neutrality came from outside systems thinking, a large shift occurred sometime around 1962.…”

Section: The Evolutionary Adaptations and Complications Of Neutralitymentioning

confidence: 97%

“…By dismissing neutrality in favor of advocacy and placing the alliance in clear jeopardy, the therapist endangers the effectiveness of relational therapy (Bachelor & Horvath, 1999;Ohrenstein & Lieberman, 1994;Stolorow & Atwood, 1997). Thus, while neutrality could plausibly leave the alliance barren, as our previous discussion of Bowenian therapy highlighted, open alignment and advocacy, however therapeutically purposed, would likely subdivide the alliance-foreclosing the amicable working relationship and neutral working space of relational therapy, both between the therapist and one or more systems members, but also between partners as well, as advocacy and alignment heightened tensions and intensified divisions along the fault lines of the relationship.…”

Section: A Survey Of Attempts At Reconciling Alliance and Neutrality mentioning

confidence: 98%

A Primer on the Evolution of Therapeutic Engagement in MFT: Understanding and Resolving the Dialectic Tension of Alliance and Neutrality. Part 1—Retrospective: The Evolution of Neutrality

Brimhall

Butler

2010

The American Journal of Family Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alliance and neutrality are the two fundamental constructs defining therapeutic engagement. Although both are critical to positive clinical process and outcome, they become much more difficult to effectively balance in relational therapies. In many ways they coexist in an unrecognized dialectic tension. A history of the evolution of neutrality in relational therapies is provided. Evolutionary iterations of relational therapy have experimented with different formulations of the neutrality-alliance mix. We critique these hybrid conceptualizations of neutrality as they relate to the therapeutic alliance. In a second paper, we propose multipartiality and enactments as a dynamic, engaged neutrality that represents a fully realized relational advocacy. Together, the papers provide a primer on therapeutic engagement in MFT.[Therapy] is above all else a human endeavor. It will flourish and grow as long as its scientific aspects, including objective evaluation, are promoted. But its fundamental therapeutic efficacy will always remain much more intimately connected to the fact that human beings . . . can This paper is one of a two-part series and introductory portions of the two papers overlap and are reprinted with permission.

show abstract

“…If we believe this, hiding our personal part in whatever is going on can only inhibit the psychoanalytic process. Stolorow and Atwood (1997) have argued that there can be no neutrality in an intersubjective view of treatment. For one patient, saying that the analyst will be away for two weeks is more than enough to say.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%