Reich (1972, p. 3) goes on at this point to consider the nature of what he calls “latent resistance”:

What is a “latent resistance”? They are attitudes on the part of the patient which are not expressed directly and immediately, i.e., in the form of doubt, distrust, tardiness, silence, obstinacy, apathy, etc., but indirectly in the analytic performance. Exceptional docility or complete absence of manifest resistances is indicative of concealed and, for that reason, much more dangerous passive resistance.

Ironically, these most dangerous forms of resistance are among those that are most readily apparent to the analysts. Like the armor being worn by the Tin Man, the resistance is being worn and is manifest in ways that are immediately apparent. One of these ways is described by Reich as “breaking the basic rules.”

Breaking the Basic Rules: The resistance is often identified as character resistance as a way to capture its power and pervasive appearance as part of the character armor. It shows up in a variety of different ways early in the therapy program. Often it is a matter of the patient “not following the basic rules.” (Reich, 1972, p. 43) The patient shows up late for their therapy session. Or the patient either accepts the therapist’s interventions uncritically or rejects them without given the rejection any thought.

There is an important point to be made. The behavioral patterns often suggest that the patient doesn’t yet really trust the therapist—often because of the long-standing neurosis, living in a “neurotic milieu” or failure to obtain help from previous therapists. Reich notes that this initial lack of trust is usually based in one’s Ego—not in one’s more primitive irrational fears.

This failure to follow the basic rules is usually addressed initially as an “instructional” issue—with the therapist pointing out the basic rules and providing information that might help the patient increase their trust in the therapist. Later, the failure to follow the rules is addressed in an interpretive manner, with the therapist exploring deeper issues regarding trust and rules.

Reich (1972, p. 49) offers the following suggestions regarding the approach to be taken at this later stage in identifying and analyzing the character resistance:

In addition to the dreams, associations, slips, and other communications of the patients, the way in which they recount their dreams, commit slips, produce associations, and make their communications, in short their bearing, deserves special attention. Adherence to the basic rule is something rare, and many months of character-analytic work are required to instill in the patient a! halfway sufficient measure of candidness. The way the patient speaks, looks at and greets the analyst, lies on the couch, the inflection of the voice, the degree of conventional politeness which is maintained, etc., are valuable cues in assessing the secret resistances with which the patient counters the basic rule. And once they have been understood, they can be eliminated through interpretation. It is not only what the patient says but how he says it that has to be interpreted. Analysts are often heard to complain that the analysis is not progressing, that the patient is not producing any “material.” By material, what is usually meant is merely the content of the associations and communications. But the nature of the patient’s silence or sterile repetitions is also material which has to be used fully. There is scarcely a situation in which the patient does not produce any material, and we have to lay the blame upon ourselves if we can’t make use of the patient’s bearing as material.