transference ({{Top}}[[transfert) The term 'transference' first emerged in]]{{Bottom}}
==Sigmund Freud=====Definition===The term "[[transference]]" first emerged in [[Freud]]'s [[work ]] as simply [[another ]] term for the [[displacement ]] of [[affect ]] fromone [[idea]] to another.<ref>{{F}} ''[[The Interpretation of Dreams]]''. 1900a: [[SE]] V, 562</ref>
one idea to another (see Freud, 1900a: SE V, 562). Later on, however, itcame to refer to the [[patient]]'s [[relationship]] to the [[analyst]] as it develops in the [[treatment]].
came to refer to This soon became the patient's relationship to central [[meaning]] of the analyst as term, and is the [[sense]] in which it develops is usually [[understood]] in the[[psychoanalytic theory]] today.
treatment. This soon became The use of a special term to denote the central meaning of [[patient]]'s relationship to the term, and [[analyst]] is justified by the sensepeculiar [[character]] of this relationship.
===Treatment===[[Freud]] was first struck by the intensity of the [[patient]]'s [[affect]]ive reactions to the doctor in [[Breuer]]'s [[treatment]] of [[Anna O]] in 1882, which it is usually understood in psychoanalytic theory todayhe argued was due to the [[patient]] transferring [[unconscious]] [[ideas]] onto the doctor.<ref>{{F}} (1895d) With Josef Breuer. ''[[Sigmund Freud|Bibliography|Studies on Hysteria]]''. [[SE]] II.</ref>
The use of ====Resistance====As he developed the [[psychoanalytic]] method, [[Freud]] first regarded the [[transference]] exclusively as a special term to denote [[resistance]] which impedes the patient's relationship [[recall]] of [[repression|repressed]] [[memories]], an obstacle to the analyst is[[treatment]] which must be "destroyed".<ref>{{F}} (1905e [1901]) "[[Sigmund Freud:Bibliography|Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria]]." [[SE]] VII, 3: 116</ref>
justified by Gradually, however, he modified this view, coming to see the peculiar character of this relationship[[transference]] also as a positive factor which helps the [[treatment]] to [[progress]]. Freud was first struck by
====Progress====The positive [[value]] of [[transference]] lies in the intensity of fact that it provides a way for the patient[[analysand]]'s affective reactions history to be confronted in the immediacy of the [[present]] relationship with the doctor [[analyst]]; in Breuer'sthe way he relates to the [[analyst]], the [[analysand]] inevitably repeats earlier relationships with other [[figures]] (especially those with the [[parents]]).
treatment This paradoxical [[nature]] of Anna O in 1882[[transference]], as both an obstacle to the [[treatment]] and that which he argued was due [[drives]] the [[treatment]] forward, perhaps helps to the patientexplain why there are so many different and opposing views of [[transference]] in [[psychoanalytic theory]] today.
transferring unconscious ideas onto the doctor (Freud, 1895d)==Jacques Lacan==[[Lacan]]'s [[thinking]] [[about]] [[transference]] goes through several [[development|stages]]. As he devel-
oped ===Dialectic===His first work to deal with the psychoanalytic methodsubject in any detail is '''[[Jacques Lacan:Bibliography|An Intervention on the Transference]]'', Freud first regarded <ref>{{L}} (1951) "[[Intervention sur le transfert]]." ''[[Écrits]]''. [[Paris]]: Seuil, 1966: 215-26 ["[[Intervention sur le transfert|Intervention on the transference exclu]]." 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]].
sively as a RESISTANCE which impedes ===Affect===He criticises [[ego-psychology]] for defining the recall [[transference]] in terms of repressed memories, an[[affect]]s:
obstacle <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 treatment [[dialectical]] [[moment]] in which must be 'destroyed' (Freud, 1905e: SE VII, 116)it is produced."<ref>{{Ec}} p.225</ref></blockquote>
GraduallyIn other [[words]], however[[Lacan]] argues that although [[transference]] often manifests itself in the guise of particularly strong [[affect]]s, he modified this viewsuch as [[love]] and [[hate]], coming to see it does not consist of such emotions but in the transference also as[[structure]] of an [[intersubjectivity|intersubjective relationship]].
This [[structural]] definition of [[transference]] remains a positive factor which helps constant theme throughout the rest of [[Lacan]]'s work; he consistently locates the [[essence]] of [[transference]] in the [[symbolic]] and not in the treatment to progress[[imaginary]], although it clearly has powerful imaginary effects. The positive value 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 lies ]] in the fact that it provides a way for the analysand's history to be[[seminar]] of 1953-4.
confronted This [[time]] he conceives it not in terms borrowed from [[dialectic|Hegelian dialectic]]s but in terms borrowed from the immediacy [[anthropology]] of the present relationship with the analyst; in the[[exchange]].
way he relates to [[Transference]] is implicit in the analyst[[speech act]], which involves an exchange of [[sign]]s that transforms the analysand inevitably repeats earlier relationships[[speaker]] and listener: In its essence, the efficacious [[transference]] which we're considering is quite simply the [[speech]] [[act]].
with other figures (especially those with 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 parents). This paradoxical nature ofthe 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]], as both an obstacle which he [[identifies]] with the [[compulsion to repeat]], the treatment and that which drives [[insistence]] of [[the symbolic]] determinants of the[[subject]].<ref>{{S2}} p. 210-11</ref>
treatment forwardThis is to be distinguished from the [[imaginary]] aspect of [[transference]], perhaps helps to explain why there are so many differentnamely, the [[affect]]ive reactions of [[love]] and [[aggressivity]].
In this [[distinction]] between the [[symbolic]] and opposing views [[imaginary]] aspects of [[transference ]], [[Lacan]] provides a useful way of [[understanding]] the paradoxical function of the [[transference]] in [[psychoanalytic theory todaytreatment]]; 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>{{S4}} p. 135; {{S8}} p.204</ref>
[[Lacan]]'s thinking about next approach to the subject of [[transference goes through several stages]] is in the eighth year of his [[seminar]],<ref>Lacan, 1960-1</ref> entitled simply "[[The Transference]]". His first
work Here he uses [[Plato]]'s [[Symposium]] to deal with illustrate the subject in any detail is 'An Intervention on relationship between the [[analysand]] and the[[analyst]].
Transference[[Alcibiades]] compares [[Socrates]] to a plain box which encloses a precious [[object]] (Grk ''[[agalma]]'' (Lacan, 1951); just as Alcibiades attributes a hidden treasure to Socrates, so the [[analysand]] sees his object of [[desire]] in which he describes the transference in dialec-[[analyst]] (see [[objet petit a]]).
tical terms borrowed 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 Hegelthen 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. He criticises ego-psychology for defming the
According to this view, [[transference in terms ]] is the [[attribution]] of AFFECTs; 'Transference does not refer [[knowledge]] to the [[Other]], the supposition that the [[Other]] is a [[subject supposed to any myster-know|subject who knows]]:
lous property of affect, and even when it reveals itself under <blockquote>"As soon as the appearance ofsubject who is supposed to [[know]] [[exists]] somewhere . . . there is transference."<ref>{{S11}} p. 232</ref></blockquote>
emotionAlthough the [[existence]] of the [[transference]] is a necessary condition of [[psychoanalytic treatment]], it only acquires meaning by virtue of is not sufficient in itself; it is also necessary that the analyst deal with the dialectical moment [[transference]] in whicha unique way.
it It is produced' (Ecthis that differentiates [[psychoanalysis]] from [[suggestion]]; although both are based on the [[transference]], 225)[[psychoanalysis]] differs from [[suggestion]] because the [[analyst]] refuses to use the [[power]] given to him by the [[transference]].<ref>{{E}} p. 236</ref>
In other words, Lacan argues that although transference often manifests---
itself From quite early on in the guise history of particularly strong affects, such aS LOVE [[psychoanalysis]] it became common to distinguish between those aspects of the [[patient]]'s relationship to the [[analyst]] which were "adapted to reality" and hate, itthose which were not.
does not consist of such emotions but In the latter [[category]] fell all the [[patient]]'s reactions which were caused by "perceiving the analyst in the structure of an intersubjectivea distorted way".
Some [[analyst]]s used the term "[[transference]]" to refer to all aspects of the [[analysand]]'s relationship. This structural definition to the [[analyst]], in which [[case]] they distinguished the distorted "[[transference|neurotic transference]]" or "[[transference|transference neurosis]]" from the "unobjectionable part of the transference remains a constant" or "therapeutic alliance."<ref>Edward Bibring, Elizabeth Zeztel</ref>
theme throughout the rest of Lacan's work; he consistently locates the essence---
of Other [[analysts]] argued that the term "[[transference in ]]" should be restricted to the symbolic and not in "unrealistic" or "[[irrational]]" reactions of the imaginary[[analysand]] (William Silverberg, although it clearlyFranz Alexander).
has powerful imaginary effects. Later onHowever, Lacan will remark the common assumption underlying both of these positions was that if transfer-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]].
ence often manifests itself under The [[analyst]] was credited with this ability because he was supposed to be better "adapted to reality" than the appearance of love, it is first and foremost[[patient]].
Informed by his own correct [[perception]] of [[reality]], the love of knowledge (savoir) [[analyst]] could offer "transference [[interpretations]]"; that is concerned, he could point out the discrepancy between the [[real]] [[situation]] and the irrational way that the [[patient]] was reacting to it.
Lacan returns It was argued that such [[transference|transference interpretation]]s helped the analysand to the subject of the gain "insight" into his own [[transference|neurotic transference in the seminar of 19534]] and thereby resolve it or "liquidate" it.
This time he conceives it not in terms borrowed from Hegelian dialectics but in---
terms borrowed from the anthropology Some of exchange (Mauss, LÈvi-Strauss)[[Lacan]]'s most incisive criticisms are directed at this way of representing [[psychoanalytic treatment]].
Transference is implicit in These criticisms are based on the speech act, which involves an exchange of signsfollowing arguments:
that transforms the speaker and listener:---
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]].
In its essence, Hence when the efficacious transference which we're considering [[analyst]] assumes that he is quitebetter 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 speech actpart that thinks as we do".<ref>{{E}} p. Each time a man speaks to another in an authentic and232</ref>
full manner, there is, This reduces [[psychoanalytic treatment]] to a [[form]] of [[suggestion]] in which the true sense, transference, symbolic transference -[[analyst]] simply "imposes his own idea of reality" on the [[analysand]].<ref>{{E}} p. 232</ref>
something which takes place which changes <blockquote> Thus "the nature inability [of the two beingsanalyst] 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>
present.---
(Sl2. The idea that the [[analysand]]'s "distorted perception of the analyst" could be liquidated by means of [[interpretation]]s is a [[logical]] fallacy, 109)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 seminar of [[transference]] from which the following year[[analyst]] could offer an [[interpretation]], since any [[interpretation]] he continues offers "will be received as coming from the person that the transference imputes him to elaborate on the symbolicbe."<ref>{{E}} p. 231</ref>
nature of transference, which he identifies with the compulsion to repeat, the---
insistence 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 symbolic determinants [[analysand]]'s acceptance of the subject (S2, 210-11). This is tothat [[interpretation]]:
be distinguished <blockquote>"The emergence of the subject from the imaginary aspect of transference, namely, theis thus postponed ad infinitum."<ref>{{E}} p. 231</ref></blockquote>
affective reactions of love and aggressivity. In this distinction between the---
symbolic and imaginary aspects of Does this mean that [[Lacanian]] [[analyst]]s never interpret the [[transference, Lacan provides a useful way]]?
of understanding 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 paradoxical function power of such [[interpretation]]s to dissolve the [[transference in psychoanalytic]].
treatment; Like any other [[interpretation]], the [[analyst]] must use all his [[art]] in its symbolic aspect (REPETITION) it helps deciding if and when to [[interpret]] the [[transference]], and above all must avoid gearing his [[interpretation]]s exclusively to [[interpreting]] the treatment progress by[[transference]].
revealing He must also know exactly what he is seeking to achieve by such an [[interpretation]]; not to rectify the signifiers of the subject[[patient]]'s historyrelationship to [[reality]], while in its imaginary aspectbut to maintain the [[discourse|analytic dialogue]].
(love and hate) <blockquote>"What does it acts as mean, to interpret the transference? [[Nothing]] else than to fill the [[void]] of this deadlock with a resistance (see S4[[lure]]. But while it may be deceptive, 135; S8, 204)this lure serves a [[purpose]] by setting off the whole [[process]] again."<ref>{{Ec}} p.225</ref></blockquote>
Lacan's next approach to the subject of transference is in the eighth year of---
his seminar (When describing the [[transference]] as "positive" or "[[negative]]", [[Lacan, 1960-1), entitled simply 'The Transference']] takes two different approaches. Here he uses
Plato's Symposium Following [[Freud]], [[Lacan]] sometimes uses these adjectives to refer to illustrate the relationship between nature of the analysand [[affect]]s, "[[transference|positive transference]]" referring to loving affects and the"[[transference|negative transference]]" referring to [[aggressivity|aggressive]] [[affect]]s.<ref>{{Ec}} p. 222</ref>
analyst. Alcibiades compares Socrates to a plain box which encloses a precious---
object 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> (Grk agalmawhere [[Lacan]] argues that when the [[analysand]]'s [[resistance]] opposes [[suggestion]], this [[resistance]] must be "placed in the ranks of the positive transference" on the grounds that it maintains the direction of the [[analysis]]); just as Alcibiades attributes a hidden treasure to Socrates,.
so the analysand sees his object of desire in the analyst (see OBJETPETITA).---
In 1964, Although [[Lacan articulates the concept ]] does [[speak]] occasionally of transference with his concept of the[[countertransference]], he generally prefers not to use this term.
SUBJECT SUPPOSED TO KNOw, which remains central ==See Also=={{See}}* [[Affect]]* [[Aggressivity]]* [[Analysand]]||* [[Counter-transference]]* [[Dialectic]]* [[Love]]||* [[Knowledge]]* [[Imaginary]]* [[Interpretation]]||* [[Metalanguage]]* [[Progress]]* [[Repression]]||* [[Resistance]]* [[Subject supposed to Lacan's view of theknow]]* [[Suggestion]]||* [[Symbolic]]* [[Treatment]]* [[Unconscious]]{{Also}}
transference from then on; indeed, it is this view of the transference which==References== 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 who knows; 'As soon as the subject who is supposed to know exists somewhere . . . there is transference' (Sll, 232). 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 differ- entiates 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 (see E, 236). 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 analysts used the term 'transference' to refer to all aspects of the analysand's relationship to the analyst, in which case they distinguished the distorted 'neurotic transference' or 'transference neurosis' from the 'unobjectionable part of the transference' or 'therapeutic alliance' (Edward Bibring, Elizabeth Zeztel). 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 com- mon 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 interpretations helped the analysand to gain 'insight' into his own 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 arguinents: 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' (E, 231). The healthy part of the patient's ego is then defmed simply as 'the part that thinks as we do' (E, 232). This reduces psychoanalytic treatment to a form of suggestion in which the analyst simply 'imposes his own idea of reality' on the analysand (E, 232). 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' (E, 226). b 2- The idea that the analysand's 'distorted perception of the analyst' could e 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' (S8, 206). 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' (E, 231) 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; 'the emergence of the subject from the transference is thus postponed ad infinitum' (E, 231). Does this mean that Lacanian analysts never interpret the transference? Certainly not; Lacan affirms that 'it is natural to interpret the transference' (E, 271), but at the same time he harbours no illusions about the power of such<references/>
interpretations to dissolve the transference. Like any other interpretation, the{{OK}}[[Category:Practice]][[Category:Treatment]]
analyst must use all his art in deciding if and when to interpret the transfer- ence, 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' (Ec, 225). When describing the transference as 'positive' or 'negative', Lacan takes two different approaches. Following Freud, Lacan sometimes uses these adjectives to refer to the nature of the affects, 'positive transference' referring to loving affects and 'negative transference' referring to aggressive affects (Ec, 222). Sometimes, however, Lacan takes the terms 'positive' and 'negative' to refer to the favourable or unfavourable effects of the transference on the treatment (see E, 271, where Lacan argues that when the analysand's resistance opposes suggestion, this resistance must be 'placed in the ranks of the positive trans- ference' on the grounds that it maintains the direction of the analysis). Although Lacan does speak occasionally of COUNTERTRANSFERENCE, he gen- erally prefers not to use this term. == def == The displacement of one's unresolved conflicts, dependencies, and aggressions onto a substitute object (e.g. substituting a lover, spouse, etc. for one's parent). This operation can also occur in the psychoanalytical cure, when a patient transfers onto the analyst feelings that were previously directed to another object. By working through this transference of feelings onto the analyst, the patient can come to grips with the actual cause of his or her feelings. == References ==<references/>__NOTOC__
[[Category:Lacan]][[Category:Terms]][[Category:Concepts]][[Category:Psychoanalysis]]{{Encore}} pp. 67, 144
