Argument for the EPF conference ‘Neutrality – Neutralität – Neutralité’

 

Dear Colleagues,

We are delighted to invite you to the 39th Annual Conference of the European Psychoanalytical Federation 2026 to be held in Oslo, Norway. This will be the first time the EPF Annual Conference is held in Norway where our hosts will be the Norwegian Psychoanalytical Society. From our conference in Dresden, 2025, on the River Elbe, we shall be moving to Oslo located on the impressive Oslo Fjord. Our conference hotel, the Clarion Hotel, The Hub, offers a fantastic view of this famous outlet of the North Sea.

We have chosen the theme: ‘Neutrality – Neutralité – Neutralité’. This is a term that is commonly used in other fields of science and is also applied to the practice of psychoanalysis.

For example, in international politics, ‘neutrality’ (from the Latin neuter = neither one nor the other), means either that a state does not support any party in a conflict between other states, or that it is not a member of any alliance.

In turn, neutrality in law courts, is a mandatory requirement to uphold the principle of the rule of law: the executive and judicial branches are strictly separated in terms of organisation. The courts are not the agent of the state.

In philosophy, the problem of neutrality is discussed together with that of objectivity: to be objective means to judge from a neutral standpoint, i.e. to distance oneself, in as far as that is possible, from one's own subjectivity.

Climate neutrality ultimately signifies that human activity will not affect the climate.

Can these meanings of neutrality also be found in the field of psychoanalysis? And what twists and shifts does the term undergo when it appears in the history of psychoanalysis to redefine the analyst's “Einstellung” (Freud; attitude) towards the patient?

It is a striking fact that Freud never used the term ‘neutrality’ in connection with questions of technique. The term emerged from the translation of certain passages in his work. And in the entry ‘Neutrality’ in ‘The Language of Psychoanalysis,’ Laplanche & Pontalis have compiled a selection of specific passages from Freud's work so that they ultimately distilled the concept of neutrality.

Freud's short essay ‘Recommendations to physicians practicing psycho-analysis’ (1912) seems to be most important for understanding the psychoanalytic meaning of ‘neutrality.’ Various forms of psychoanalytic ‘neutrality’ can be distinguished there:

For example, neutrality towards the material presented is illustrated by the listening of the psychoanalyst “without any purpose in view” (SE 12 114), giving “equal notice to everything” (111), and making no selection by not applying any censorship. Freud also refers to this procedure as the well-known term “evenly suspended attention” (111).

Neutrality must also be applied to one's own emotions or affects. The list of possible affects is long. Freud himself mentions ‘sympathy’ (115; ‘Mitleid’) and therapeutic or educational ambition (119). According to this, excessive demands on oneself are just as harmful as the desire for the patient to become something very special. Freud also advises against disrupting ongoing treatment with one's own research or scientific interests. He considers that the most appropriate model is that of the surgeon, who performs the operation most successfully under conditions of ‘emotional coldness’ (115). This model is certainly very different from the earlier technique of ‘treatment by suggestion’ (118).

Time and again, the ideal of analytical neutrality in Freud's texts are linked to the need to keep the self-relationship ( ‘Eigenbeziehung’ 112), free from disruptive influences, so-called ‘complexes of his own’ (‘Eigenkomplex’ 116). This is the task of self-analysis (“Eigenanalyse”), which we now call ‘training analysis’.

In the context of intersubjective and relational theories related to the current debate on the concept of neutrality vs disclosure is a final aspect of Freud's text concerning the concept of ‘affective technique’ (117). This is a synonym for ‘self-disclosure,’ i.e., the tendency to give the patient confidential information about one’s own inner life. Freud warns against succumbing to this temptation. The damage to the treatment would be much greater than the benefit. It only awakens the patient's desire to learn more about their analyst instead of turning to their own unconscious, and thus will only reinforce resistance to their unconscious.

Finally, I refer to the famous passage in which Freud speaks of ‘indifference/neutrality’ (towards patients) ‘which we have acquired through keeping the countertransference in check’ (SE 12 164). It is worth considering the different nuances between Indifferenz/indifference/indifference in the EPF’s selected official languages. Strachey translated Freud's ‘Indifferenz’ as ‘neutrality,’ and thereby probably gave the starting signal for the triumph of this term within the psychoanalytic world. Neutrality here simply means resisting the temptations of transference love.

These different aspects of the term neutrality were first taken up again by Freud himself and then critically commented on by his successors from very different perspectives. The surgeon metaphor was rejected, in particular by the Kleinian school (Brenman Pick, 1985 Working Through in the Countertransference), because it attached too little importance to the analyst’s findings from their countertransference. Freud's criticism of ‘affective technique’ was more or less forgotten in the wake of the intersubjective paradigm, that calls for greater equality between patient and analyst. Other criticisms were directed against the requirement of neutrality insofar as it belonged to the era of ‘one body psychology,’ which simply ignored the subjectivity of the analyst under the guise of supposed objectivity. There was even talk of the ‘myth of neutrality.’ Laurence Kahn, in particular, repeatedly opposed overly one-sided and simplistic critics of Freud and defended his fundamental technical rules, including neutrality or indifference.

Despite diverse objections, the concept of neutrality has proven itself to the present day in various analytical schools, languages and cultural circles, as a core concept of analysis. It distinguishes psychoanalysis from psychotherapy. However, it is by no means obvious what differences have emerged between different traditions. What, for example, are the specific differences between the contemporary Kleinian, post Kleinian, contemporary Freudian and Winnicottian perspectives on neutrality?

Laplanche proposed a redefinition of neutrality in the context of his General Theory of Seduction. According to this, ‘neutrality’ does not primarily mean refusing to help others, give them advice or passing on knowledge. According to him, neutrality is rather nourished by respect for inner otherness, a sense of inner boundaries, and manifests itself as a renunciation of any desire to dominate others or shape them according to one's own standards.

We would like to invite you to join us in discussing the many open questions evoked by the concept of neutrality. In view of the current global social crises and conflicts, there are few other psychoanalytic concepts that are equally suited to building bridges between treatment techniques and political reality, between psychoanalysis inside and outside the consulting room.

We look forward to your thoughts and arguments on this intriguing theme and to welcoming you to the Clarion Hotel The Hub in Oslo for the 39th Annual Conference of the EPF in 2026.

Jan Abram, President

Udo Hock Vice President, Chair of the Programme Committee

Nergis Gûleç, Secretary General

 

Pre-Conference 25th – 26th March 2026
Main Conference 27th – 28th March 2026

More information will follow soon.

 

CALL FOR NEW AUTHORS

Individual Papers Oslo 2026

5.00 – 6.30 pm on Friday 27th March and Saturday 28th March, 2026

The Individual Paper Section offers an opportunity for new authors to present their clinical/metapsychological work to an EPF audience with the possibility of it being published on the EPF website.

The IP Section is open to:

New authors who are IPA members
Newly qualified analysts
New authors to the IP Section

The paper should be between 4,000 and 6,000 words and relate directly to the theme of the conference argument on the EPF website.

The main argument (up to 200 words), should be outlined in the Abstract. References must be included at the end of the paper according to the EPF Style Guide – see here

ALL CLINICAL MATERIAL MUST BE DISGUISED FOLLOWING THE EPF PUBLICATION POLICY – see here

Please send your paper in full with the title, author’s name and society, and the Abstract at the beginning of the paper.

Submissions should be received not later than November 30th 2025. You will receive the outcome of your submission at the beginning of January 2025.

PLEASE NOTE:

Submissions can only be accepted through the submission system. Please upload your submission here: (the link to the submission system will be available soon)

EPF registration tradition

All participants of the EPF Annual Conference are expected to register and pay the appropriate fee for the full conference. The only exceptions to this tradition are the Plenary Speakers, Executive Members and special invited guests for the Round Table.

All speakers and participants should be IPA members and/or candidates. Guests, who should be recommended by an IPA analyst, are also welcome as long as they are bound by a code of ethics related to psychoanalytical clinical work.

This registration tradition is based on the aims and objectives of the Annual Conference since the first EPF’s conference in 1976: to offer a forum for European psychoanalysts to gather together for psychoanalytic scientific discourse in an atmosphere of collaboration and tolerance regarding different theoretical psychoanalytic perspectives and the advancement of psychoanalysis.

We trust that all participants will appreciate the spirit of this esteemed tradition and see their registration fee as a contribution to the continuity and expansion of psychoanalysis in Europe in the best interests of all psychoanalytic societies of the Federation.

Thank you for your consideration.

EPF Executive