Psychiatrist. She continues her psychoanalytic training within Psike İstanbul Psychoanalytic Association. She works as an academician at Cyprus Science University.
What Silence Says
In a psychoanalysis session, there are silences in between as the analysand puts into words what is going through his mind. The silence of the analysand in the session has meaning as much as the words. Throughout the history of psychoanalysis, the analysand’s silence has attracted as much attention as his/her expression with words and the meaning of this silence has been discussed. The prevailing perspectives in different periods have shaped how this silence is interpreted and handled. Silences in session are sometimes a moment of contemplation, with the analyst’s simple question “what’s on your mind?”, or, typically, a comment followed by silence. If the analysand finds the comment correct, there is often a short silence followed by words of affirmation; if the analysand finds it incorrect, the silence may be prolonged. Sometimes the analysand’s silence is accompanied by tension and distress in the body. The words seem to come out with difficulty, with effort. The analysand seems to be struggling to continue verbal expression. This is a different kind of silence and needs to be understood. In the early stages of psychoanalysis, the analysand’s silence was seen as resistance and an obstacle to be overcome. Over time, as the role of the ego became more prominent, the meaning of resistance and its adaptive function were emphasized. The analysand’s silence was seen not only as an obstacle, but as a source from which the nature of their intrapsychic conflicts could be understood. The analysand’s silence may not only be a resistance, but also a source of information through the transference response. What happened in the past is repeated in the session. A past event in the analysand’s life where silence was of special importance may be unconsciously enacted in the session.
The regression provided by the analyst’s silence in the session activates the unconscious fantasies of the analysand. However, the silence of the psychoanalyst may have a meaning beyond the technique. Sometimes the analyst’s silence is related to intrapsychic processes, sometimes it is part of the interaction with the analysand in the transference-countertransference process. It becomes possible to recognize the unconscious meaning of silence within this dyadic interaction. How silence is interpreted and addressed from different psychoanalytic perspectives in the interaction of the analytic dyad will be discussed with case vignettes.