|
The concept of “resistance” was introduced into the analytic lexicon to account for the patient’s refusal to accept the analyst’s interpretation of the truths that lie in the patient’s unconscious, the de-repression of which would set the patient free from his neurosis. If we no longer believe there is a truth the patient must accept to overcome his pathology, then “resistance” has lost its meaning as a force opposing the essence of the treatment. To label the patient’s disagreement with the analyst “resistance” is to invoke an authoritarian truth that does not fit the theoretical or clinical reality of today’s psychoanalysis. Nonetheless, there are often times when the patient stands in staunch opposition to the analyst’s interpretations. How do we understand such an impasse in today’s psychoanalytic world from which the analyst’s authority has been eroded? Is there a place for “resistance” in such a world? If not, what replaces “resistance” and how do we understand an impasse between patient and analyst? In this panel, three analysts will address these questions from different theoretical perspectives, and then our fourth member will discuss these approaches to seemingly intractable differences between patient and analyst.


