ABSTRACT
In a field so inherently disturbing and uncertain as psychoanalysis, the desire for authority is significant. Freud’s writing has filled that role. He mapped the territory of analytic therapy, establishing critical questions and themes. Those who have followed Freud in trying to understand human functioning and the process of change have been both inspired and constrained by his insights. The scope of Freud’s genius has kept the field from making changes capriciously. This intellectual tradition is part of what gives psychoanalysis its substance and rigor, and it speaks to the advantage of having a seminal figure like Freud. But Freud’s role as an authority has also served to limit vision in the field. As the source of psychoanalysis, Freud tugs at our thinking, coloring how we understand human functioning and the problems of therapy. At times this infusion is so complete that we fail even to see it. In a country where iron infuses the soil, people will believe that the ground everywhere is red. Freud’s writings on psychoanalytic technique have functioned similarly: they have filtered through the soil of therapy, permeating it. In this section I argue that we have lost track of the fact that the call for analytic neutrality has a beginning, and that if we examine that beginning it becomes clear that it is deeply tied to the arguments that fueled Freud’s work.
