Teleanalysis Does Not Have to be “Muted”: On the Crucial Role of the Analyst’s Internal Frame in any Setting

Given that practicing teleanalytically is relatively new and more widespread than ever, questions about how to practice and teach it effectively have increased and are more pressing than ever. To contribute answers to these questions, this paper addresses long-standing and persisting negative views of teleanalysis as an inherently muted, remote, and pale experience with reduced therapeutic effectiveness. I propose that this view of teleanalysis as inherently inferior to in-office analysis limits or even precludes its therapeutic usefulness because it allows analysts to avoid making analytic use of the disturbing feelings hiding within the experience of practicing teleanalysis. Through case examples, I suggest that when analysts do not take our negative views of teleanalysis at face value but instead consider them as symbolic expressions of our and our patients’ anxieties, we can improve our understanding of our analytic functioning within the tele-setting and enhance our capacity to think and engage analytically effectively in any setting. I maintain that these considerations have important implications, not only for how experienced analysts practice, but also for how we treat and teach future analysts.