“Thesis III: The springs of aggressivity decide the reasons that motivate the technique of analysis.
… In particular, it will soon become apparent, indeed confirmed, that the analyst refrains from offering any kind of advice or trying to influence the patient in any particular direction. This constraint would seem to run counter to the desired end, and so must be justified by some deeper motive.
What then lies behind the analyst’s attitude? The concern to provide the dialogue with a participant who is as devoid as possible of individual characteristics; we efface ourselves, we deprive the speaker of those expressions of interest, sympathy, and reaction that he expects to find on the face of the listener, we avoid all expression of personal taste, we conceal whatever might betray them, we become depersonalized, and try to represent for the other an ideal of impassibility …
… We wish to avoid the trap that already lies concealed in the appeal, marked by the eternal pathos of faith, that the patient addressed to us. It carried a secret within itself. ‘Take upon yourself,’ the patient is telling us, ‘ the evil that weighs me down; but if you remain smug, self-satisfied, unruffled as you are now, you won’t be worthy of bearing it.’
What appears here as the proud revenge of suffering will show its true face – and sometimes at a moment decisive enough
to enter the ‘negative therapeutic reaction’ that interested Freud so much – in the form of that resistance amour-propre – it is often expressed thus … ‘I can’t bear the thought of being freed by anyone other than myself.’