This article was downloaded by: [84.205.244.

138]
On: 25 February 2013, At: 01:32
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rspr20

A few reflections on how we may approach

the unconscious
a
Pentti Ikonen
a
Karsikkotie 10, 82900, Ilomantsi, Finland
Version of record first published: 21 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Pentti Ikonen (2003): A few reflections on how we may approach the unconscious, The
Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review, 26:1, 3-10

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01062301.2003.10592902

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the
contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae,
and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not
be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this
material.
 Scand. Psychoana/. Rev. (2003) 26, 3-10 Copyright 2003
---THE---
SCANDINAVIAN
PSYCHOANALYTIC
REVIEW
/SSN 0106-2301

A few reflections on how we may approach the unconscious*

Pentti Ikonen

This paper inquires into the method of psychoanalysis, i.e., the way one, in
psychoanalysis, investigates the unconscious. The author emphasizes that the
basic instrument in this investigation is the analysand's self-observation. Ac-
cordingly, the goal of psychoanalysis is viewed as the enhancement of the
Downloaded by [84.205.244.138] at 01:32 25 February 2013

analysand's ability to observe himself (and, thus, the facilitation of the inter-
nal flow of information), and that all other goals are secondary to this one.
In this context, the author mainly discusses the instrument of interpretation.
It is found that many psychoanalysts today seem to disregard this instru-
ment's function of helping the analysand to see for himself what there is to
be observed in his own psyche. The author makes a distinction between help-
ing the analysand acquire the ability to make observations and the making
of observations in themselves, draws some inferences from this, and discusses
various difficulties in keeping to the mentioned basic goal of psychoanalysis.

Key words: unconscious - self-observation - interpretation

Even a brief review of the current trends in
psychoanalysis is enough to show that psychoana-
lytic research, psychoanalytic practice and its goal
can be understood in many different ways. This
has given rise to a discussion, which will probably
continue for a long time. What follows is my con-
tribution to this discussion.
with the help of psychoanalysis. This is what
psychoanalysis has wished to achieve from its very
beginning - to bring psychic elements dissociated
from consciousness under conscious self-obser-
vation - and this is where its fundamental right of
existence lies.
II

Accordingly, we understand the basic task of

Within every living creature, information on the
function and status of the separate parts has to be
transmitted to the other parts so that the whole
may function. Psychoanalysis strives to find and
remove the obstacles to this information trans-
mission and thereby facilitate it.
We do not know how many obstacles a person
has to his internal information flow, or what type
these obstacles are. We can observe some of them
and some of those that we have observed are such
that we can help the analysand to remove them
*Translated by Kaisa Sivenius.
psychoanalysis to be the promotion of the internal
transmission of information within the area of the
psyche. This is why the unconscious must be
studied in such a way that what is brought to the
conscious mind and thereby within the trans-
mission of information is exactly what there is in
the unconscious and in those forms in which it is
there, i.e., what has been dissociated one way or
the other. We strive to hold on to this consistently
without forgetting that a great deal of other things
also take place during psychoanalytic work.
The basic goal of the expansion of conscious-
ness or conscious self-observation shuts out any
 other possible goals of analysis, such as certain
changes in the personality that are considered
signs of healing, the fact that certain themes are
retrieved for processing, the formation of new psy-
chic structures, the joint creations of the analyst
and the analysand, etc. Such other goals may also
be accomplished without an expansion of the con-
scious - and often at the price of its expansion -
as the dissociations become stronger or move to
other areas. Some time ago, it was customary to
talk about a flight to health, for example, where
the flight was a flight from the study of the uncon-
scious and becoming conscious of the uncon-
scious. Today, we might rather talk about a flight
from the threat of expanded self-observation to
some other goal set for analysis.
Such other goals set for analysis and such other
psychic events will be arrived at in the course of
Downloaded by [84.205.244.138] at 01:32 25 February 2013
the analytic work anyway: they need not be set as
the primary goals of analysis. The analysand may
use them to answer either consciously or uncon-
sciously some intervention by the analyst or, more
generally, anything that may occur during analy-
sis. Yet they cannot be set as the goals of analytic
cooperation, because the analysand cannot know
what he should do in order to reach them. Thus,
analysis remains a ritual, and the analysand does
not understand its connection to the goal. Bring-
ing the unconscious within the reach of conscious
self-observation is understandable as a goal of
analysis and can also be demonstrated. It is some-
thing that can be agreed as the goal of analysis
together with the person starting the analysis.
III
Self-observation is the basic instrument of becom-
ing conscious. The obvious fact that something is
brought to the conscious mind by turning it into
an object of conscious observation becomes com-
plicated in psychoanalysis because the analysand
does not know what to look for as the object of
his observation (one cannot know what is uncon-
scious) and because there are obstacles to self-ob-
servation and they, too, lie beyond the reach of
self-observation. To put it bluntly, we might say
that what must be retrieved as the object of con-
scious self-observation is the reason why conscious
self-observation does not work. Because of this, a
person needs another person to help him to ex-
pand his self-observation (consciousness); in other
words, the analysand needs the help of the analyst.
Together with the analyst, the analysand can study
4
such areas of his psyche where the borders of the
dissociated area are mobile or weak and release
samples to the conscious mind of what generally
is or only a moment ago still was unconscious in
the analysand's psyche. Step by step, the obstacles
to self-observation and whatever it was that they
were meant to prevent from becoming observed,
are brought within the sphere of self-observation,
the analysand's internal flow of information is ex-
panded and he is able to observe this expansion.
Every person is the primary observer of his own
consciousness. Only he or she has immediate ob-
servations of what takes place in it. In order for
the analyst to be able to help the analysand ex-
pand the area of his self-observation, the analys-
and must report his observations to the analyst as
exactly and unselectively as possible.
IV
In other words, the analysand has two basic tasks:
to observe his own psyche and to report his obser-
vations to the analyst. The task of the analyst is
to help the analysand expand his self-observation
specifically to those areas of his psyche where it
does not usually have access, and to help him re-
port his observations.
It may at first be difficult for the analysand to
understand what self-observation and the reporting
of its results to the analyst mean. The analyst has to
explain what self-observation is all about in words
and by example, i.e., by what the analyst pays atten-
tion to in the analysand's reporting.
The self-observation needed in the analytic
work requires two things from the analysand: the
sharpening of his observations directed at his psy-
che, on the one hand, and refraining from judging
or reflecting on the phenomena he has observed
and using the energy thus saved for further obser-
vation, on the other. Freud explains these two
principles of self-observation in "The Interpreta-
tion of Dreams" (Freud, 1900). By following these
principles, such psychic material as would other-
wise remain unaccessed can be brought within the
reach of conscious self-observation. Or, to put it
in yet other words, it becomes possible to move
on the weak points of the obstacles protecting the
unconscious.
The first of these principles requires the training
of a specific skill, self-observation, while the other
calls for an organisation of the dynamics of the
psyche, or its use of energy, in a particular way.
Helping the analysand to put to use and develop
 his self-observational activity and to find the dy-
namic organisation necessary for it does not only
belong to the initial phase of the analysis. Help
with this must be provided throughout the analy-
sis. Helping the analysand to achieve and maintain
the necessary skills for this activity is not the same
thing as helping him to do the work itself, al-
though these may at some points overlap. In-
structing someone how to use binoculars and relax
his eyes and position during the viewing is not the
same thing as helping them collect observations of
the object viewed (to use a rough example).
Understanding the interventions made by the
analyst in order to help the analysand acquire this
working skill and do the analytic work as two sep-
arate things makes it easier to differentiate the
analytic work from its background. All inter-
Downloaded by [84.205.244.138] at 01:32 25 February 2013
ventions and talk offered by the analyst are not
analysis: they may, for example, prepare the ana-
lysand for the analytic work, maintain the work,
break it off or simply take a rest from it. In order
to help the analysand to acquire the skill of ana-
lytic work, analysts use a great variety of different
methods. They are often described as methodolog-
ical exceptions in case vignettes, but they are not
always clearly distinguished from the analytic
work itself. Similarly, not everything the analysand
says and does is the material sought after for self-
observation in analysis, though they may provide
the point of departure for the search.
v pretation could be determined beforehand. They
Interpretation as a tool in the study of the uncon-
scious is problematic in many ways. Freud orig-
inally meant interpretation to serve as an aid to
self-observation in situations where the analys-
and's self-observation, that moves according to
free association, stopped (Spacal, 1990). However,
interpretation now seems to have risen to a central
position and left self-observation almost entirely
in its shadow. I refer to the descriptions of the ana-
lytic work where the analyst interprets the analys-
and's talk - or even behaviour - without paying
attention to whether we are dealing with the ana-
lysand's self-observation or self-expression in gen-
eral, with its own, and quite different, objectives.
Interpretation disregards the obstacles to con-
sciousness. It strives to reach the material the ana-
lysand has dissociated directly, without dealing
with the inner obstacles on its way. The analyst
who uses interpretation assumes that adequate
interpretation which helps the analysand become
conscious of some unconscious material simul-
taneously makes the obstacles to consciousness
unnecessary, or that the obstacles are easier to deal
with when they have become less necessary. In any
case, with such assumptions, the analyst tries to
establish as the object of the analysand's self-ob-
servation something that the analysand is not dy-
namically ready to observe.
In the best case, interpretation may help the ana-
lysand become conscious of something uncon-
scious even when it is incorrect or inadequate in
some other way. However, interpretation may also
be fruitless or misleading and it may become a long-
term obstacle to self-observation. Every analyst
knows examples of his own work, either directly or
as traces of others' work, as well as of his self-analy-
sis. What is essential is that interpretation is always
guessing, it is an art, as Freud calls it in various con-
nections. We have no knowledge of what states of
the affair we might deduce from what states of the
affair in order to make the interpretation. It is only
afterwards, and not even always then, that we can
determine why some interpretation helped the ana-
lysand in his self-observation. Afterwards, we can
also search and guess at the formal criteria of a
good interpretation, such as the right timing, the
right language, the right prosody, the right suc-
cession, the object of the interpretation is suffi-
ciently close to consciousness, etc., but such criteria
are formal and have no knowledge-based prediction
value by means of which the adequacy of the inter-
provide perspectives from which the inadequacy of
an interpretation that turned out to be inadequate
can afterwards be examined.
If and when the aim of psychoanalytic interpre-
tation is to help the analysand retrieve as the ob-
ject of his self-observation some unconscious ele-
ments of his psyche, the interpretation is deter-
mined very precisely through this task. The
interpretation must refer to something that al-
ready exists in the analysand's psyche and not to
bring something new there, such as a new angle to
something, or to offer the analysand something
the interpreter assumes in a new, either more toler-
able or more cutting form. If the element referred
to in the interpretation that lies in the unconscious
psyche in its own form is left unattained by the
analysand's self-observation, the interpretation
does not fulfil the basic task of analysis, even if
the analysand might be able to make use of it in
many other ways. The singularity of the object of
the interpretation underlines the difficulty of inter-
5
 pretation as a form of art and, at the same time,
undermines the importance of knowledge-based
learning in the art of interpretation.
VI
We know about the unconscious only as far it has
become conscious, i.e., what used to be uncon-
scious. We also know something of the uncon-
scious elements of the psyche through their deriva-
tives that are observable in consciousness. How-
ever, the unconscious elements deduced from the
derivatives must first become the object of con-
scious self-observation, so that the assumed de-
rivative relationship can be pronounced real. A
simple comparison will clarify the idea. I see a
light bark boat float on the surface of the water.
Suddenly, the boat begins to move quickly back
Downloaded by [84.205.244.138] at 01:32 25 February 2013
and forth and I assume that there is something
under the water that moves it. When I look closer,
I see that there is indeed a caterpillar clinging to
the bottom of the boat and its movements make
the boat move. A moment ago, the only thing I
new of this underwater creature was the movement
it caused. Now I know what it is and how it causes
the boat to move. But it might also happen that I
can see nothing under the surface and understand
that almost unnoticeable breaths of wind move the
boat back and forth. There was no particular hid-
den power there to move the boat. Its own visible
structure and soft currents of wind produced the
movement. There is reason to be careful in making
deductions on what remains beyond conscious ob-
servation, until it is retrieved as an object of obser-
vation.
There is even more reason to be careful with
interpretations and to understand their use as
comparable to a form of art. We know from ana-
lytic experience that everything that appears in the
conscious mind may also be present in the uncon-
scious, except those things that either explicitly or
implicitly bear the attribute conscious. But we also
know that the flows of events in the unconscious
mind need not take into account certain restric-
tions that we deem necessary when constructing
conscious reality.
In our unconscious relationship with the world
and ourselves, we need not take into account the
structures of time and space, cause and effect, the
rules of logic, the limits set by the jointly accepted
material reality or ethical, aesthetic or communal
norms. Nor do we need to take into account the
use of representative signs (in which I also include
6
mental images, emotions, facial expressions and
gestures) bound by the rules of normal discourses
concerning them, as the relationship of the repre-
senting sign with the represented can be almost
anything. In other words: according to the more
general knowledge that we have of the uncon-
scious mind, a person need not take into account
in his unconscious mind the bases of knowledge
and values on which our conception of reality is
built. It follows from this that the laws of our con-
scious knowledge cannot support interpretations.
We only know that these laws do not apply in the
unconscious. The manifest dream may suffice as
an example. It is a sample of the mind's usually
unconscious forms of action that has slipped into
the conscious mind during sleep.
VII
In spite of the guessing nature of interpretation,
part of the interpretations fulfil their goal and help
the analysand reach material referred to in the
interpretation by means of self-observation. The
analyst's guesses have in these cases turned out to
be adequate. When they do not get support from
the kind of epistemological basis on which our
conception of reality is generally founded, they
have to lean on something else, in order not to
remain completely arbitrary attempts. As far as I
understand, the interpretations lean on the ana-
lyst's experiences of his own psyche. The analyst
enters into the description given by the analysand
of his psyche and thinks what might be moving in
his own psyche if he were in the psychic situation
of the analysand and what there is such that the
analysand is obviously unable to observe in his
psyche or talk about. The analyst then suggests
that to the analysand. If the interpretation is suc-
cessful, the analysand observes the suggested mat-
ter in his psyche. Every interpretation should,
therefore, actually begin by "if I were in your psy-
chic situation, I would ..." , etc. For many reasons,
however, this is hardly ever done; instead, the
interpretation is said without any introductory
phrases or perhaps with some reserve. This prac-
tice that has been found useful in the work is, how-
ever, apt to promote a misunderstanding of the
epistemological foundation of the interpretations.
It creates the impression that the interpretations
are based on some general knowledge from which
they may be applied to the singular psychic situ-
ation of a single person, although this is not the
case. Psychoanalytic theory only provides the ana-
 lytic work with a perspective from which to study
each particular matter involved. Which of the per-
spectives offered by analytic knowledge is useful
to adopt as the starting point of the study in each
case must also be solved by the analyst on the
basis of the experience he has in his own psyche
concerning the type of mental situation involved.
Nor can the analyst in his interpretation offer any
such element, event or status of the psyche that he
could not in principle experience in his own psy-
che, as well (see, e.g., Postenyi, 1996). This, again,
requires that nothing human must potentially be
alien to the analyst.
That nothing human ought to be alien to the
analyst is a problem in many ways: how could this
be possible or how could it be replaced when it is
not possible. It is not possible to deal with this
problem here, but it is a good idea to bear it in
Downloaded by [84.205.244.138] at 01:32 25 February 2013
mind, particularly because it often assumes in the
analyst's mind or in external criticism a form that
is hurtful to the analyst's professional identity:
"The analyst has not been analysed properly" or
"the analyst's work is restricted because he belongs
to this particular school". At one time, it was
popular to talk about "the analyst's blind spots".
If, in principle, nothing human is alien to the
analyst, the obstacles to consciousness should
not be alien to him either. The wish to make
progress in the work and to bring what is hidden
behind the obstacles within the sphere of self-
observation tempts the analyst to interpretative
guesses. Especially if the interpretation appears
adequate and the analysand reacts to it by
changing in the desired direction, the treatment
of the obstacles may be neglected as unnecessary.
Instead, a greatly simplified picture of the uncon-
scious element is created as the "cause" of the
symptoms and of the interpretation as the "heal-
er". This picture is generally not mentioned ex-
plicitly, but it dominates implicitly many analytic
discussions and case vignettes. It also leads to
using the analytic work for setting norms to
what ought to be found and interpreted in the
unconscious. Once set, norms, again, diminish
the chance of listening to the analysand's expla-
nation of what he is observing in his psyche and
leads away from the analysand's observations to-
wards assumptions that fit the analyst's theory.
VIII
The analysand's self-observation proceeds closer
to his psychic reality when it follows internal dis-
turbances of self-regulation that attract it, as dis-
turbances usually do attract observation. The ana-
lysand's self-observation moves in an area where
the unconscious material as an inner "other force"
(Postenyi, 1984) disrupts self-regulation without,
however, reaching consciousness. The area is weak
or uncertain from the point of view of defence,
and a touch with the unconscious may be ob-
served. However, if the disturbance is very strong,
it also arouses a strong desire to defend oneself.
Because of this, minor disturbances, such as slips,
where the need for defence is smaller, have their
special value as starting points of self-observation.
When external disturbances are minimised,
internal ones lend themselves to observation more
easily. This is one argument for the analytic setting
and the analyst's neutrality and abstinence. Some-
times, however, extreme neutrality and abstinence
can turn into an external disturbance. The analyst
needs to decide in casu where to draw the line.
As the duty to report self-observations and the
consequent need to take the listener into account
continue to disturb self-observation more or less
markedly, the analyst can all the time take this
both internal and external disturbance up as an
object of self-observation. However, the interest
that the analyst thus continues to express increases
the weight of the disturbance and supports the de-
pendence of the analysand's self-observation on
the other person, who needs to be taken into ac-
count. In this way, the analyst can, should he so
wish, direct the analysand's self-observation and
the entire analysis so that is becomes dominated
by transference. The analysand's self-observations
on the weight of the disturbances and his own fo-
cusing of his self-observation, accordingly, are
closer to the analysand's psychic reality.
IX
The most harmful aspect of interpretations from
the point of view of the basic goal of analysis is
the well-known and common tendency of analys-
ands to replace self-observation with the interpre-
tation. The analysand then accepts his reaction to
the interpretation, i.e., the mental images, emo-
tions, impulses to act, etc., aroused by it as con-
sciousness of his unconscious psyche. However,
this may be a way of evading some unpleasant ob-
servation, the imaginary fulfilment of some libid-
inal, narcissistic or sadomasochistic wish, the ease-
ment of guilt or some other defensive operation.
The analysand does not use the interpretation he
7
 has been given to facilitate his self-observation,
but for something else. Particularly when the inter-
pretation does not help him find something im-
mediately, instead of rejecting the interpretation,
he uses it to meet the needs of the dynamics of
the moment. Yet regardless of the adequacy of the
interpretation, the analysand always responds to
the interpretation with some other change in the
dynamic organisation of his psyche than a success-
ful or unsuccessful attempt at self-observation.
Consequently, he may respond to an adequate
interpretation and subsequent successful self-ob-
servation by a "negative therapeutic reaction" and
to an incorrect interpretation by a "positive thera-
peutic reaction". The analyst will find out about
these things only afterwards, if they appear as ob-
jects of the analysand's self-observation.
In an essay published in 1931, Glover (1955)
Downloaded by [84.205.244.138] at 01:32 25 February 2013
studies the therapeutic effect of inexact interpreta-
tions - we might as well say "incorrect interpreta-
tions" - and assumes that they act as suggestions,
or rather that the analysand uses them as if he
had received suggestions. Glover does not stop to
consider the key problem of suggestion, i.e., how
it is possible that a person can with the help of
suggestion from another person influence several
bodily and mental functions which otherwise are
not in his conscious control (such as the vaso-
motor changes necessary for turning pale, for ex-
ample). Glover focuses his attention on the quality
of the suggestive relationship and the forms in
which the suggestion is offered, as those who study
suggestion usually do. However, in what form and
within what type of a relationship he is willing to
receive and carry out the suggestion, if at all, de-
pends on the object of suggestion. Even the use of
suggestion is a kind of art. There can be no univer-
sal rules for its desired outcome, because everyone
is free to react in his own way to the offered sug-
gestion as well as to the suggestive relationship.
The analysand may accept some of the analyst's
interpretations or other interventions as the kind
of suggestions with which he changes his self-ob-
servation so that it becomes more acute; he may
also distort it or even avoid something entirely, al-
ways according to how he experiences his relation-
ship with the analyst. The relationship between
transference and self-observation brings out, in
statu nascendi, how taking someone else into con-
sideration affects self-observation. Consequently,
there is reason to bring the importance of the ana-
lysand's relationship with the analyst as an object
of the analysand's self-observation. It offers the
8
analysand the opportunity to check his obser-
vations and their independence or dependence on
the analyst. It also clarifies to what extent the ana-
lysand has reached the unconscious elements of
his psyche without altering them in accordance
with the conception he has of his analyst. When
the interdependence of transference and self-ob-
servation is reached by self-observation, it is also
a sign that self-observation is free from this de-
pendence. At the same time, it creates the pre-
requisites for the analysand's analysis to continue
as self-analysis after the cooperation between the
analyst and the analysand has come to an end.
X
When the analyst uses interpretations to help the
analysand study his unconscious psyche, he gives
the analysand's potential self-observation more
shape and direction than if he starts from some
jointly-observed difficulty the self-regulation runs
into, and the self-observation the analysand fo-
cuses on this fact. The analysand may use the
interpretation given by the analyst with either
positive or negative authority to press his obser-
vation into a shape with which he can evade some
unpleasant matter or an unpleasant feature of
some matter.
Obviously, the analysand himself tries to shape
the material he allows under his self-observation
in a way that would make it less unpleasant for
him, but in that case, this is his own activity which
he may sooner or later reach by self-observation
and not from a formulation offered by an out-
sider. The lighter the touch the analysand's self-
observation has with the material he has observed,
the more lucid and unchanged he gets it at his dis-
posal. Naturally, this is true of the analyst as well.
Freud's recommendation that we should treat the
manifest dream with all its details as a sacred text
also applies to self-observation and the material it
reaches in the psyche. If Freud had not taken this
attitude, we would not have the evidence of man's
unconscious psychic activities which "The Inter-
pretation of Dreams" contains.
I will try to illustrate this further. Johan Norman
mentioned at some Nordic Psychoanalytic Con-
gress something that he called the permeability of
the analyst. It is what makes the analyst different
from other craftsmen even in connection with an
occasional discussion with a person who seeks his
help. I understood this so that the analyst opens a
place in his mind and heart for what he hears, with-
 out immediately starting to judge or interpret it.
Another indication of this is the analysand's excla-
mation, "goodness, you are listening to me", which
the analyst sometimes gets to hear at the early stage
of analysis. Hanns Sachs tried to express the op-
posite of this with his example of a butterfly: an
eager little boy catches a butterfly in his hand with
the purpose of studying the fascinating patterns in
its wings more closely. When the energetic but im-
prudent student opens his fist, there is not much left
of the object of his study.
Pontalis (1986) has written about the old mean-
ing of the concept passion. It is the logical opposite
of the concept action and differently from reaction,
which is a counter-action, it means the exposure of
oneself to the consequences of action. The function
of the senses will serve as an example. When I want
to see some object, I want to expose my eyes to the
Downloaded by [84.205.244.138] at 01:32 25 February 2013
light waves (or particles) it emanates; the more
clearly I want to see the object in all its features, the
more sensitive I want my exposure or passion to be-
come. A well-developed skill of passion is, there-
fore, a useful instrument for the analyst in his study
of the psyche. The analysand, too, needs it as the
primary observer of his consciousness. One aid in
learning the skill is the analyst's example. For many,
this may be the only aid.
XI
Directing the observation at one's own psyche
with as much passion as possible does not corre-
spond to the prevailing ideals of education, teach-
ing and acting in our culture, as these ideals con-
tinue to lead us to action and turn towards the
outside world in order to observe it. The analys-
and, who has adopted the attitude recommended
and partly even required by our culture, needs
some kind of explicit or implicit guidance in the
analytic work and his own part in it. Without
some idea of the basic goal and nature of the ana-
lytic work, the mental images of them change in
the direction of the more general concepts increas-
ingly used to describe them. The analytic work be-
comes above all interaction, a dialogue, a joint cre-
ation, a reinterpretation, a construction of new
narratives, or something of the kind. All these may
be necessary for the analytic work, but what is es-
sential is what we try to use them for. If some joint
creation of the analysand and analyst, such as
some conception of something in the analysand's
life that has been arrived at, is the basic goal of
the analytic work, everything else will be subordi-
nate to joint creation. If, on the other hand, joint
creation is an instrument for the study of the ana-
lysand's unconscious psyche or maintenance of the
analysand's skill of analytic work, its position in
the work is subordinate to how well it functions in
these tasks. If it does not work or if it seems to
become an obstacle to reaching the basic goal, it
must be given up.
The goal of the work determines the measures
taken during the work. Measures that help ac-
complish the goal are correct. A specific goal de-
termines the measures more clearly than an unspe-
cific or too general goal. A concrete example is two
tasks given to a carpenter: make a specific type of
table or make a piece of furniture.
The basic goal of psychoanalysis, to help the
analysand expand his consciousness, is specific
and both psychologically and biologically justi-
fied. As such, it is also a precise criterion for the
measures to be used.
In addition to their goal, the applications of
natural sciences also have knowledge of the effects
of different measures at their disposal. The analyst
does not have such knowledge. The analysand is
free to decide how he responds to the analyst's in-
terventions, whatever they may be. The analyst's
only means is trial and error.
XII
Dependence on another person's free will in an im-
portant work is often difficult to bear, but there is
yet another difficulty involved. Analytic knowl-
edge and its acquisition include no power at all.
Without the analysand's consent, the analyst is un-
able to study his psyche. This arises in every ana-
lyst, at least the occasional wish that one could be
freed of this dependency, that one would find some
power to overrule it. But if we could in some way
acquire knowledge about the analysand's uncon-
scious against his will, we would simultaneously
be left without the essential knowledge why he did
not want to give it and why it was unconscious. In
other words, we would not acquire knowledge
after all.
Nevertheless, power attracts and the attraction
is easy to justify with the requirement of efficiency,
for example, which is one form of the use of
power. In our culture, knowledge involves power.
It must be possible to use knowledge to manipu-
late some object, or it must be possible to produce
it with some manipulation. If this is not the case,
we do not have real knowledge.
9
 Analytic knowledge is opposite to the concep-
tion of knowledge that involves power. We simply
have to let ourselves absorb knowledge of another
person's and our own unconscious by becoming
impressed in the same way as our sense organs are.
It cannot be produced, unless we regard the pre-
paredness to receive as producing, and the more
we are exposed only to receive observation ma-
terial, the more genuine and the more useful it is -
useful in the sense that once the material is observ-
able and no longer dissociated, the person who is
its source is now in contact with it and the possi-
bility to take it into account. The observation ma-
terial has no manipulative application. It only
serves as evidence of what there is or may be in
the person's psyche. At this stage the analytic work
has been completed as far as the point in question
is concerned, although it generally seems difficult
Downloaded by [84.205.244.138] at 01:32 25 February 2013
to trust such a result. Manipulative applications as
something more or more efficient are always
tempting in their own way, but they are hindered
by man's psychic freedom.
CONCLUSION
What practical consequences do these reflections
have? Analytic work does not need support or jus-
tification from statistics; nor does it need to be
searched for curative or mutative factors. These
are given in the basic goal of psychoanalysis.
The analyst need not worry about conflicting
theories or schools in his practical work. He col-
lects material of self-observation on which theor-
ies are built and against which they are verified.
Although theories and schools provide different
Copyright Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review. 2003
10
perspectives to the study, they need not be allowed
to disturb self-observation.
The analyst's task is to help the analysand at-
tain unconscious material as the object of his self-
observation and to maintain the skill of analytic
work. In the latter task, as good as all means seem
to be permissible, as long as they do not disturb
the accomplishment of the basic goal. There is no
need to worry about finding interpretations. They
are there only to help the analysand's self-obser-
vation, and there are other tools for that task as
well.
REFERENCES
Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of dreams. S.E., 4--5.
Glover, E. (1931). The therapeutic effect of inexact interpre-
tation: a contribution to the theory of suggestion. In:
The Technique of Psychoanalysis. London: Bailliere, Tin-
dall & Cox, 1955.
Pontalis, J.-B. (1986). Nej, nej och ater nej! In: Matthis, I.
(ed.): Griins och rorelse. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
Postenyi, A. (1984). Some reflections on interpretation,
holding and psychoanalysis as a science. Scand. Psy-
choanal. Rev., 7: 11-131.
- (1996). Hitom lustprincipen; Drom, trauma, dOdsdrift.
Divan, 3: 4--15.
Spacal, S. (1990). Free association as a method of self-ob-
servation in relation to other methodological principles
of psychoanalysis. Psychoanal. Q., 59: 420--436.
Pentti Ikonen
Karsikkotie 10
82900 Ilomantsi
Finland