On interpellation by the enigma: Revisiting the relation of nondirectiveness and psychoanalysis through Laplanche

This article examines the concept of nondirectiveness—introduced by Carl Rogers to describe his therapeutic approach—and its relevance to psychoanalysis. It argues that nondirectiveness can be seen as an essential element of psychoanalytic practice, not only for ethical reasons but because it is required by the very process that analysis seeks to initiate. In Freud’s early work, the belief that psychoanalysis could address the true causes of suffering, rather than merely the symptoms, depended on the analyst’s neutrality as a safeguard against suggestion. Over time, however, Freud shifted toward a more directive stance, driven by the universalization of the psychic schemas he believed analysis had uncovered. Although this universalization has since been widely questioned, many post-Freudian accounts of the analyst’s role still overlook the rationale behind Freud’s metaphor of the analyst as a mirror, which initially cast psychoanalysis as a nondirective therapeutic practice. Jean Laplanche’s understanding of the analytic process is presented as a way to revisit this issue. The focus is placed on Laplanche’s positioning of the analyst on the side of deconstruction and on recognizing synthesis as the spontaneous process on the side of the analysand, as well as on “hollowed-out” transference which, in his view, reproduces the conditions of early conscious and unconscious knowledge formation rather than fostering suggestion. Engaging psychoanalysis with the idea of nondirectiveness may reorient the concept from ideology to methodology, while making Laplanche’s notions—such as “enigma,” “hollowed-out transference,” and “originary seduction”—more accessible for those interested in nondirectiveness.