Kohut talks about 'experience-near' modes of interacting and contrasts it with (something... i can't remember so i shall guess) 'experience-far'? modes of interacting.

the latter is the neutrality that the traditional Freudian analysts aimed for. the notion was that if the therapist was an objective listener who didn't indulge the patients transferences then this provided the neutrality required for projections / transferences. I think Freud said this in an attempt to motivate that view: If the client doesn't know that i'm married then that gives them projection / transference options and possibilities that are ruled out by their knowledge that i'm married. for example, they are less able to fantisise / wonder whether i'm really involved in a steamy homosexual affair.

the former is Kohut's invention, basically. the notion that the therapist can fulfill the self-object needs and that optimal frustrations (ie inability to fulfill all of them) are the mechanism of change.

a problem with the Freudian neutrality is that it was often said that only certain kinds of patients were suitable for Freudian analysis. some people didn't have the 'ego strength' to cope with the experience-distant mode of interaction. some peoples paranoia (that the therapist doesn't like them or responds to them with disgust) will only intensify as they don't have sufficient ego strength to work through the transference. it was thought that if the therapist 'gave in' and reassured the patient then that was a block to the patients being provided the opportunity to work through the transference. the notion seems to be that the therapists neutrality is one of the necessary mechanisms for structural changes to the personality.

there was some stuff on how Kohut's self psychology was a form of supportive therapy rather than true psychoanalysis because it didn't provide the neutrality required for patients to work through their transferences. people have argued on his behalf that it IS true psychoanalysis because you don't need neutrality for patients to work through their transferences. Kohut said that he struggled for a long time with the discrepancy between what patients seemed to need (and what he wanted to provide for them) and what his training said he should do. some people have argued that Freud actually wasn't as neutral as his writings suggested. Kohut thought that the neutrality was unnecessarily... and was unnecessarily... cruel (not quite the word). painful. Kohut's version expands the scope of patients who are suitable for analysis. instead of only being an option for people who have the ego strength to tolerate the therapists neutrality those who couldn't tolerate the therapists neutrality are able to be analysed by way of the experience-near mode of interaction.

i'm not a great fan of self-disclosure. i don't want to know anything about my therapist. an exception to this is strategic disclosure of the therapists thoughts / feelings / emotional responses to me, however. sometimes... i already know more about my therapist than i wanted to know. i see why he has disclosed what he has, however. i think the reality check is quite good for me. i do have the temptation to go lalalalalalala more than i needed to know, however. some people think that self disclosure prevents / weakens transferences. modes of therapy that don't think transference is required for theraputic change often advocate strategic use of self-disclosure. things get a lot more controversial with modes that require transference for meaningful theraputic change, however.

Maybe the idea is that self-disclosure does moderate (lessen) transference. that can be useful with respect to clients prone to intense transference who have had some fairly bad experiences. It might be useful to moderate some clients transference by strategic use of self disclosure. especially clients who are in danger of being lost in the past... self disclosure can be a useful reality check. for clients who find it harder to feel attached / to experience transference then maybe less self disclosure is better. though i do think... that the experience near empathetic stance is more likely to foster attachment than neutrality