Silence in psychotherapy is often heralded as a cornerstone of depth-oriented practice, particularly within the psychodynamic tradition. Yet, its application is far from a simple pause or absence of speech. It is a dynamic and deliberate tool. This tool demands both timing and attunement to the relational field. As a psychodynamically trained mental health professional, I see silence as more than a passive default. It is an active intervention. This intervention requires careful navigation of the therapist’s own defenses. It also involves managing countertransference and understanding the client’s unique needs. This article delves into these complexities. It draws from my clinical experience. It also relies on personal study to examine the interplay between silence, self-awareness, and therapeutic efficacy.
Silence Beyond the Stereotype
In psychodynamic theory, silence holds a significant role. It is often imbued with symbolic weight as a space for the client to engage with their unconscious. It also allows them to reflect on unarticulated emotions (Freud, 1912). However, for some therapists, this emphasis can devolve into a performative gesture. It becomes a stereotype of the aloof, silent therapist. This therapist wields power and assumes a symbolic role, rather than cultivating genuine presence. This risks reducing the therapist to a hollow representation of a psychodynamic archetype. Instead, they should embody an authentic therapeutic stance to support the client.
It can be contended that maintaining silence, even when performative, may still serve as a container for the client’s projections. This creates a space for unconscious material to emerge (Ogden, 1982). This approach may hold some efficacy with certain client groups to a limited extent. However, it can also introduce challenges within the therapeutic process. Drawing from my own clinical experience, I will provide an example. Through its analysis, I will elucidate the potential issues associated with performative silence.
A Case in Point: Silence as Disruption and Sanctuary
This tension crystallised in my work with a young client diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. Their visceral aversion to silence illuminated its dual nature. It acted as both disruption and potential sanctuary. Early in our work, they struggled to endure even brief pauses. Their agitation escalated to the point of seeking to terminate sessions prematurely. In one pivotal encounter, after a prolonged silence, they asked to leave. I trusted my countertransference. I sensed that their request was an attempt to control the session and my perception of them. I responded neutrally: “You’re free to leave whenever you wish.” I neither ended the session nor escorted them out, leaving the decision in their hands.
What followed was a 20-minute standoff. They remained seated, visibly wrestling with their impulses. Suddenly, they stood and fled the room. They ran toward the exit as if the silence itself had become unbearable. This moment was a turning point, not only for their therapy but for my understanding of silence’s potency. Reflecting on their reaction, I recognised that the silence magnified their internal conflict. It also highlighted their need for control. These dynamics are rooted in their borderline presentation (Kernberg, 1975). Yet, rather than abandon silence, I reframed it in subsequent sessions as an invitation. It became a safe space to sit without obligation. This allowed an escape from the daily churn of anxiety rather than confronting an imposed void.
Over the course of a year, this client gradually learned to tolerate—and even inhabit—silence. Though triggers persisted, their capacity to remain present grew markedly. This change is a testament to the slow, relational work of redefining silence’s meaning. This evolution was not linear. I needed to hold steady through their agitation. I trusted that the therapeutic container could withstand their flight and return.
Performative Silence as a Container for Projections
As discussed, a common defense of performative silence in psychodynamic practice is that it can serve as a container. It holds the client’s projections. This perspective holds merit within the psychodynamic framework. The therapist’s neutrality can act as a blank screen for projection (Freud, 1912). However, it risks overlooking the relational and ethical implications of such an approach.
First, performative silence, when rooted in the therapist’s own unexamined defenses, may prioritize the therapist’s image over the client’s needs. This often happens through adherence to a stereotypical role. As I reflected in my work with a young client with borderline personality disorder, I noted their initial inability to tolerate silence. They struggled with silence initially. This inability caused agitation. It also led to a desire to flee the session. Had I leaned into a performative silence to encourage projections, I might have exacerbated their distress. This could have potentially ruptured the therapeutic alliance. This experience suggests that silence can become a barrier when it is not attuned to the client’s emotional capacity. This is particularly true for clients with heightened sensitivities to perceived rejection or abandonment, as noted by Kernberg (1975).
Second, performative silence may obscure the therapist’s authentic presence, which is often crucial for fostering a secure therapeutic relationship. Projections can emerge in the presence of silence. However, if the therapist lacks genuine engagement, the client risks feeling unseen or unheard. In my practice, I found that transforming silence into a safe space took effort. It required me to remain actively attuned to my countertransference. I also needed to be aware of the client’s responses. For instance, I invited my client to use silence as a respite from daily stress. It became a tool rather than a void to fill with projections. This allowed me to meet them where they were. I avoided imposing a theoretical framework that might not serve their immediate needs.
Finally, an overreliance on performative silence can absolve the therapist of the responsibility to engage in self-reflection and relational attunement. If silence becomes a default rather than a deliberate choice, the therapist may miss opportunities to intervene effectively. These interventions could deepen the therapeutic process through interpretation, reflection, or simply breaking the silence. Such actions validate the client’s experience. My own journey of self-study has taught me that silence is most effective when it is a living practice. It is shaped by the unique dynamics of each therapeutic dyad. It should not be a static posture adopted to elicit projections.
Countertransference as Compass
My countertransference was central to this process. I identified it as a simultaneous sense of control. I also felt anxiety about relinquishing authority during the session with the client. When they requested to leave due to the silence, my immediate feelings were unexamined. Acting on these feelings could have resulted in a markedly different outcome. I experienced a dual impulse. One was to assert authority by emphasizing the session’s time boundaries and cautioning that leaving would yield no progress. The other was to adopt an accommodating stance by immediately guiding them toward the exit. In either scenario, these responses might have impeded the formation of a robust therapeutic alliance. This could have happened even if they continued attending sessions. Instead, I used this awareness as a guide. It informed my decisions about when to maintain silence and when to break it. I aimed to restore the sense of control to the client. They decided whether and when to leave (before the end of the session). I observed their subsequent actions with full autonomy.
This experience highlights a broader principle: countertransference need be viewed as a resource to be skillfully integrated. I systematically examined my emotional responses during sessions. I also reflected on them afterwards. With this examination, I was able to adjust my application of silence. This adjustment better aligned with the client’s therapeutic process. I was no longer swayed by my own predispositions. This reflexive approach was developed over years of self-analysis. It facilitated the transformation of a potentially disruptive element. It turned into a constructive space for growth.
Conclusion: Silence as a Living Practice
Silence in therapy is neither a monolith nor a mandate. It is a living practice. It is shaped by the interplay of therapist and client within the therapeutic dyad. Its efficacy hinges on the therapist’s willingness to interrogate their own defenses. They need to move beyond the stereotype of the silent sage. They should wield it with intention rather than inertia. Working with this client taught me that silence can unsettle profoundly. It can also heal deeply. Its power lies in this duality. Therapists can learn to navigate this terrain through self-study. They can also engage in relational attunement. In doing so, they offer silence not as a pause but as a presence. It becomes a space where clients might encounter themselves anew.
Refrences
- Freud, S. (1912). Recommendations to Physicians Practising Psycho-Analysis. Standard Edition, 12.
- Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. Jason Aronson.
- Ogden, T. H. (1982). Projective Identification and Psychotherapeutic Technique. Jason Aronson.
PsychoSocial 