Changes

The term "Later on, however, it came to refer to the [[patient]]'s [[transferencerelationship]]" first emerged in to the [[Freudanalyst]]'s work as simply another term for it develops in the [[treatment]].

==Transference and Freud==The term [[transference]] first emerged in [[Freud]]'s work as simply another term for the [[displacement]] of [[affect]] from one idea to another.<ref>Freud, 1900a: SE V, 562</ref>Later on, however, it came to refer to the patient's relationship to the analyst as it develops in the treatment. This soon became the central [[meaning ]] of the term, and is the [[sense ]] in which it is usually [[understood ]] in [[psychoanalytic theory ]] today.The use of a special term to denote the patient's relationship to the analyst is justified by the peculiar character of this relationship.

Freud was first struck by the intensity The use of the patient's affective reactions a special term to denote the doctor in [[Breuerpatient]]'s [[treatment]] of [[Anna O]] in 1882, which he argued was due relationship to the [[patientanalyst]] transferring [[unconscious]] ideas onto the doctor.<ref>Freud, 1895d</ref>As he developed the psychoanalytic method, Freud first regarded is justified by the transference exclusively as a peculiar [[resistancecharacter]] which impedes the recall of [[repression|repressed]] [[memories]], an obstacle to the treatment which must be 'destroyed'this relationship.<ref>Freud, 1905e: SE VII, 116</ref>

Gradually, however, he modified this view, coming to see the transference also as a positive factor which helps ===Treatment===[[Freud]] was first struck by the treatment to progress. The positive value intensity of transference lies in the fact that it provides a way for the analysand[[patient]]'s history [[affect]]ive reactions to be confronted the doctor in the immediacy [[Breuer]]'s [[treatment]] of the present relationship with the analyst; [[Anna O]] in the way 1882, which he relates argued was due to the analyst, [[patient]] transferring [[unconscious]] [[ideas]] onto the analysand inevitably repeats earlier relationships with other figures doctor.<ref>{{F}} (especially those with the parents1895d)With Josef Breuer. This paradoxical nature of transference, as both an obstacle to the treatment and that which drives the treatment forward, perhaps helps to explain why there are so many different and opposing views of transference in psychoanalytic theory today''[[Sigmund Freud|Bibliography|Studies on Hysteria]]''. [[SE]] II.</ref>

==Transference and Jacques Lacan==Resistance====Lacan's thinking about As he developed the [[transferencepsychoanalytic]] method, [[Freud]] goes through several stages. His first work to deal with regarded the subject in any detail is '''An Intervention on the Transference'','<ref>Lacan, 1951</ref> in [[transference]] exclusively as a [[resistance]] which he describes impedes the transference in [[dialecticrecall]]al terms borrowed from of [[Hegelrepression|repressed]]. He criticises [[ego-psychologymemories]] for defining , an obstacle to the transference in terms of [[affecttreatment]]s; which must be "destroyed".<ref>{{F}} (1905e [1901]) "Transference does not refer to any mysterious property [[Sigmund Freud:Bibliography|Fragment of affect, and even when it reveals itself under the appearance an Analysis of emotion, it only acquires meaning by virtue a Case of the dialectical moment in which it is producedHysteria]]."<ref>Ec[[SE]] VII, 2253: 116</ref>

In other wordsGradually, Lacan argues that although transference often manifests itself in the guise of particularly strong affectshowever, such as [[love]] and [[hate]]he modified this view, it does not consist of such emotions but in coming to see the [[structuretransference]] of an intersubjective relationship. This structural definition of transference remains also as a constant theme throughout the rest of Lacan's work; he consistently locates the essence of transference in positive factor which helps the [[symbolic]treatment] and not in the [[imaginary]], although it clearly has powerful imaginary effects. Later on, Lacan will remark that if transference often manifests itself under the appearance of love, it is first and foremost the to [[love of knowledgeprogress]] (''savoir'') that is concerned.

Lacan returns ====Progress====The positive [[value]] of [[transference]] lies in the fact that it provides a way for the [[analysand]]'s history to be confronted in the subject immediacy of the transference [[present]] relationship with the [[analyst]]; in the seminar of 1953-4. This time way he conceives it not in terms borrowed from Hegelian dialectics but in terms borrowed from relates to the [[analyst]], the [[analysand]] inevitably repeats earlier relationships with other [[figures]] (especially those with the [[anthropologyparents]] of exchange).<ref>Mauss, LÈvi-Strauss</ref>

Transference is implicit in the This paradoxical [[speech actnature]] of [[transference]], which involves as both an exchange of obstacle to the [[signtreatment]]s and that transforms which [[drives]] the speaker and listener: In its essence[[treatment]] forward, the efficacious transference which we're considering is quite simply the speech act. Each time a man speaks perhaps helps to another in an authentic explain why there are so many different and full manner, there is, opposing views of [[transference]] in the true sense, transference, symbolic transference - something which takes place which changes the nature of the two beings present[[psychoanalytic theory]] today.<ref>Sl, 109</ref>

==Jacques Lacan==[[Lacan]]'s [[thinking]] [[about]] [[transference]] goes through several [[development|stages]].  ===Dialectic===His first work to deal with the subject in any detail is '''[[Jacques Lacan:Bibliography|An Intervention on the Transference]]'',<ref>{{L}} (1951) "[[Intervention sur le transfert]]." ''[[Écrits]]''. [[Paris]]: Seuil, 1966: 215-26 ["[[Intervention sur le transfert|Intervention on the transference]]." Trans. [[Jacqueline Rose]]. Eds. Juliet Mitchell and Jacqueline Rose. ''[[Feminine]] [[Sexuality]]: [[Jacques Lacan]] and the école freudienne''. [[London]]: Macmillan, 1982; New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1982: 61-­73].</ref> in which he describes the [[transference]] in [[dialectic]]al [[terms]] borrowed from [[Hegel]].  ===Affect===He criticises [[ego-psychology]] for defining the [[transference]] in terms of [[affect]]s: <blockquote>"Transference does not refer to any mysterious property of affect, and even when it reveals itself under the [[appearance]] of [[emotion]], it only acquires meaning by virtue of the [[dialectical]] [[moment]] in which it is produced."<ref>{{Ec}} p. 225</ref></blockquote> In other [[words]], [[Lacan]] argues that although [[transference]] often manifests itself in the guise of particularly strong [[affect]]s, such as [[love]] and [[hate]], it does not consist of such emotions but in the [[structure]] of an [[intersubjectivity|intersubjective relationship]].  This [[structural]] definition of [[transference]] remains a constant theme throughout the rest of [[Lacan]]'s work; he consistently locates the [[essence]] of [[transference]] in the [[symbolic]] and not in the [[imaginary]], although it clearly has powerful imaginary effects. Later on, Lacan will remark that if [[transference]] often manifests itself under the appearance of [[love]], it is first and foremost the [[love]] of [[knowledge]] (''[[savoir]]'') that is concerned. ===Seminar of 1953-54===[[Lacan]] returns to the subject of the [[transference]] in the [[seminar ]] of 1953-4.  This [[time]] he conceives it not in terms borrowed from [[dialectic|Hegelian dialectic]]s but in terms borrowed from the [[anthropology]] of [[exchange]]. [[Transference]] is implicit in the [[speech act]], which involves an exchange of [[sign]]s that transforms the [[speaker]] and listener: In its essence, the efficacious [[transference]] which we're considering is quite simply the [[speech]] [[act]].  Each time a man speaks to another in an authentic and [[full]] manner, there is, in the [[true]] sense, [[transference]], [[symbolic]] [[transference]] - something which takes [[place]] which changes the nature of the two beings present.<ref>{{S1}} p. 109</ref> In the [[seminar]] of the following year, he continues to elaborate on the [[symbolic ]] nature of [[transference]], which he [[identifies ]] with the [[compulsion to repeat]], the [[insistence]] of [[the symbolic ]] determinants of the [[subject]].<ref>{{S2, }} p. 210-11</ref> This is to be distinguished from the [[imaginary ]] aspect of [[transference]], namely, the affective [[affect]]ive reactions of [[love]] and [[aggressivity]].  In this [[distinction ]] between the [[symbolic ]] and [[imaginary ]] aspects of [[transference]], [[Lacan ]] provides a useful way of [[understanding ]] the paradoxical function of the [[transference ]] in psychoanalytic [[psychoanalytic treatment]]; in its symbolic aspect ([[repetition]]) it helps the [[treatment ]] [[progress ]] by revealing the [[signifiers]] of the subject's [[history]], while in its [[imaginary ]] aspect ([[love ]] and [[hate]]) it [[acts ]] as a [[resistance]].<ref>see {{S4, }} p. 135; {{S8}} p. 204</ref> [[Lacan]]'s next approach to the subject of [[transference]] is in the eighth year of his [[seminar]], 204<ref>Lacan, 1960-1</ref>entitled simply "[[The Transference]]".

[[Alcibiades]] compares [[Socrates]] to a plain box which encloses a precious [[object]] (Grk ''[[agalma]]''); just as Alcibiades attributes a hidden treasure to Socrates, so the [[analysand]] sees his object of [[desire]] in the [[analyst]] (see [[objet petit a]]). In 1964, [[Lacan ]] articulates the [[concept ]] of [[transference ]] with his concept of the [[subject supposed to know]], which remains central to [[Lacan]]'s view of the [[transference ]] from then on; indeed, it is this view of the [[transference ]] which has come to be seen as [[Lacan]]'s most [[complete ]] attempt to theorise the matter. According to this view, [[transference]] is the [[attribution]] of [[knowledge]] to the [[Other]], the supposition that the [[Other]] is a [[subject supposed to know|subject who knows]]: <blockquote>"As soon as the subject who is supposed to [[know]] [[exists]] somewhere . . . there is transference."<ref>{{S11}} p. 232</ref></blockquote> Although the [[existence]] of the [[transference]] is a necessary condition of [[psychoanalytic treatment]], it is not sufficient in itself; it is also necessary that the analyst deal with the [[transference]] in a unique way.  It is this that differentiates [[psychoanalysis]] from [[suggestion]]; although both are based on the [[transference]], [[psychoanalysis]] differs from [[suggestion]] because the [[analyst]] refuses to use the [[power]] given to him by the [[transference]].<ref>{{E}} p. 236</ref> --- From quite early on in the history of [[psychoanalysis]] it became common to distinguish between those aspects of the [[patient]]'s relationship to the [[analyst]] which were "adapted to reality" and those which were not.  In the latter [[category]] fell all the [[patient]]'s reactions which were caused by "perceiving the analyst in a distorted way".  Some [[analyst]]s used the term "[[transference]]" to refer to all aspects of the [[analysand]]'s relationship to the [[analyst]], in which [[case]] they distinguished the distorted "[[transference|neurotic transference]]" or "[[transference|transference neurosis]]" from the "unobjectionable part of the transference" or "therapeutic alliance."<ref>Edward Bibring, Elizabeth Zeztel</ref> --- Other [[analysts]] argued that the term "[[transference]]" should be restricted to the "unrealistic" or "[[irrational]]" reactions of the [[analysand]] (William Silverberg, Franz Alexander).  However, the common assumption underlying both of these positions was that the [[analyst]] could tell when the [[patient]] was not reacting to him on the basis of who he really was but rather on the basis of previous relationships with other [[people]].  The [[analyst]] was credited with this ability because he was supposed to be better "adapted to reality" than the [[patient]].  Informed by his own correct [[perception]] of [[reality]], the [[analyst]] could offer "transference [[interpretations]]"; that is, he could point out the discrepancy between the [[real]] [[situation]] and the irrational way that the [[patient]] was reacting to it.  It was argued that such [[transference|transference interpretation]]s helped the analysand to gain "insight" into his own [[transference|neurotic transference]] and thereby resolve it or "liquidate" it. --- Some of [[Lacan]]'s most incisive criticisms are directed at this way of representing [[psychoanalytic treatment]].  These criticisms are based on the following arguments: --- 1. The [[whole]] idea of [[adaptation]] to [[reality]] is based on a naive empiricist [[epistemology]], involving an appeal to an unproblematic [[notion]] of "[[reality]]" as an [[objective]] and [[self]]-evident given.  This entirely neglects what [[psychoanalysis]] has discovered about the [[construction]] of [[reality]] by the [[ego]] on the basis of its own [[méconnaissance]].  Hence when the [[analyst]] assumes that he is better adapted to [[reality]] than the [[patient]] he has no other recourse than "to fall back on his own ego" since this is the only "bit of reality he [[knows]]".<ref>{{E}} p. 231</ref>  The healthy part of the [[patient]]'s [[ego]] is then defmed simply as "the part that thinks as we do".<ref>{{E}} p. 232</ref>  This reduces [[psychoanalytic treatment]] to a [[form]] of [[suggestion]] in which the [[analyst]] simply "imposes his own idea of reality" on the [[analysand]].<ref>{{E}} p. 232</ref>  <blockquote> Thus "the inability [of the analyst] to sustain a praxis in an authentic manner results, as is usually the case with mankind, in the exercise of power."<ref>{{E}} p. 226</ref></blockquote> --- 2. The idea that the [[analysand]]'s "distorted perception of the analyst" could be liquidated by means of [[interpretation]]s is a [[logical]] fallacy, since the [[transference]] is [[interpretation|interpreted]] on the basis of, and with the [[instrument]] of, the [[transference]] itself.<ref>{{S8}} p. 206</ref>  In other words, there is no [[metalanguage]] of the [[transference]], no vantage point [[outside]] the [[transference]] from which the [[analyst]] could offer an [[interpretation]], since any [[interpretation]] he offers "will be received as coming from the person that the transference imputes him to be."<ref>{{E}} p. 231</ref> --- Thus it is contradictory to [[claim]] that the [[transference]] can be dissolved by means of an [[interpretation]] when it is the [[transference]] itself which [[conditions]] the [[analysand]]'s acceptance of that [[interpretation]]: <blockquote>"The emergence of the subject from the transference is thus postponed ad infinitum."<ref>{{E}} p. 231</ref></blockquote> --- Does this mean that [[Lacanian]] [[analyst]]s never interpret the [[transference]]?  Certainly not; [[Lacan]] affirms that "it is [[natural]] to interpret the transference,"<ref>{{E}} p. 271</ref> but at the same time he harbours no [[illusion]]s about the power of such [[interpretation]]s to dissolve the [[transference]].  Like any other [[interpretation]], the [[analyst]] must use all his [[art]] in deciding if and when to [[interpret]] the [[transference]], and above all must avoid gearing his [[interpretation]]s exclusively to [[interpreting]] the [[transference]].  He must also know exactly what he is seeking to achieve by such an [[interpretation]]; not to rectify the [[patient]]'s relationship to [[reality]], but to maintain the [[discourse|analytic dialogue]].  <blockquote>"What does it mean, to interpret the transference? [[Nothing]] else than to fill the [[void]] of this deadlock with a [[lure]]. But while it may be deceptive, this lure serves a [[purpose]] by setting off the whole [[process]] again."<ref>{{Ec}} p. 225</ref></blockquote>

Although the existence of When describing the [[transference is a necessary condition of psychoanalytic treatment]] as "positive" or "[[negative]]", it is not sufficient in itself; it is also necessary that the analyst deal with the transference in a unique way. It is this that differentiates psychoanalysis from [[suggestionLacan]]; although both are based on the transference, psychoanalysis differs from suggestion because the analyst refuses to use the power given to him by the transferencetakes two different approaches.<ref>see E, 236</ref>

From quite early on in the history of psychoanalysis it became common Following [[Freud]], [[Lacan]] sometimes uses these adjectives to distinguish between those aspects of the patient's relationship refer to the analyst which were 'adapted to reality' and those which were not. In the latter category fell all the patient's reactions which were caused by 'perceiving the analyst in a distorted way'. Some analysts used the term 'transference' to refer to all aspects nature of the analysand'[[affect]]s relationship to the analyst, in which case they distinguished the distorted 'neurotic "[[transference|positive transference' or ']]" referring to loving affects and "[[transference neurosis' from the 'unobjectionable part of the |negative transference' or 'therapeutic alliance]]" referring to [[aggressivity|aggressive]] [[affect]]s."<ref>Edward Bibring, Elizabeth Zeztel{{Ec}} p. 222</ref>

Some Sometimes, however, [[Lacan]] takes the terms "positive" and "negative" to refer to the favourable or unfavourable effects of the [[transference]] on the [[treatment]]<ref>{{E}} 271</ref> (where [[Lacan]] argues that when the [[analysand]]'s most incisive criticisms are directed at [[resistance]] opposes [[suggestion]], this way [[resistance]] must be "placed in the ranks of representing psychoanalytic treatment. These criticisms are based the positive transference" on the following arguinents:grounds that it maintains the direction of the [[analysis]]).

1.The whole idea of adaptation to reality is based on a naive empiricist epistemology, involving an appeal to an unproblematic notion of 'reality' as an objective and self-evident given. This entirely neglects what psychoanalysis has discovered about the construction of reality by the ego on the basis of its own mÈconnaissance. Hence when the analyst assumes that he is better adapted to reality than the patient he has no other recourse than 'to fall back on his own ego' since this is the only 'bit of reality he knows'.<ref>E, 231</ref> The healthy part of the patient's ego is then defmed simply as 'the part that thinks as we do'.<ref>E, 232</ref> This reduces psychoanalytic treatment to a form of suggestion in which the analyst simply 'imposes his own idea of reality' on the analysand.<ref>E, 232</ref> Thus 'the inability [of the analyst] to sustain a praxis in an authentic manner results, as is usually the case with mankind, in the exercise of power."<ref>E, 226</ref>--

2.The idea that the analysand's 'distorted perception Although [[Lacan]] does [[speak]] occasionally of the analyst' could be liquidated by means of interpretations is a logical fallacy, since the transference is interpreted on the basis of, and with the instrument of, the transference itself.<ref>S8, 206</ref> In other words, there is no [[metalanguagecountertransference]] of the transference, no vantage point outside the transference from which the analyst could offer an interpretation, since any interpretation he offers "will be received as coming from the person that the transference imputes him generally prefers not to beuse this term."<ref>E, 231</ref>

Thus it is contradictory ==See Also=={{See}}* [[Affect]]* [[Aggressivity]]* [[Analysand]]||* [[Counter-transference]]* [[Dialectic]]* [[Love]]||* [[Knowledge]]* [[Imaginary]]* [[Interpretation]]||* [[Metalanguage]]* [[Progress]]* [[Repression]]||* [[Resistance]]* [[Subject supposed to claim that the transference can be dissolved by means of an interpretation when it is the transference itself which conditions the analysand's acceptance of that interpretation; "the emergence of the subject from the transference is thus postponed ad infinitum."<ref>E, 231</ref>know]]* [[Suggestion]]||* [[Symbolic]]* [[Treatment]]* [[Unconscious]]{{Also}}

Does this mean that Lacanian analysts never interpret the transference? Certainly not; Lacan affirms that "it is natural to interpret the transference,"<ref>E, 271</ref> but at the same time he harbours no illusions about the power of such interpretations to dissolve the transference. Like any other interpretation, the analyst must use all his art in deciding if and when to interpret the transference, and above all must avoid gearing his interpretations exclusively to interpreting the transference. He must also know exactly what he is seeking to achieve by such an interpretation; not to rectify the patient's relationship to reality, but to maintain the analytic dialogue. "What does it mean, to interpret the transference? Nothing else than to fill the void of this deadlock with a lure. But while it may be deceptive, this lure serves a purpose by setting off the whole process again."<ref>Ec, 225==References==<references/ref>

Although Lacan does speak occasionally of [[countertransference]]{{Encore}} pp. 67, he generally prefers not to use this term.144