Changes

==Sigmund Freud=====Definition===The term "[[transference]]" first emerged in [[Freud]]'s work as simply another term for the [[displacement]] of [[affect]] from one idea to another.<ref>{{F}} ''[[The Interpretation of Dreams]]''. 1900a: [[SE]] V, 562</ref>

==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>{{F}} 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 This soon became the intensity central meaning of the patient's affective reactions to term, and is the doctor sense in [[Breuer]]'s [[treatment]] of [[Anna O]] which it is usually understood in 1882, which he argued was due to the [[patient]] transferring [[unconscious]] ideas onto the doctor.<ref>{{F}} 1895d</ref>As he developed the psychoanalytic method, Freud first regarded the transference exclusively as a [[resistancetheory]] which impedes the recall of [[repression|repressed]] [[memories]], an obstacle to the treatment which must be 'destroyed'today.<ref>{{F}} 1905e: SE VII, 116</ref>

Gradually, however, he modified this view, coming to see the transference also as a positive factor which helps the treatment to progress. The positive value use of transference lies in the fact that it provides a way for special term to denote the analysand[[patient]]'s history to be confronted in the immediacy of the present relationship with the analyst; in the way he relates to the [[analyst, the analysand inevitably repeats earlier relationships with other figures (especially those with ]] is justified by the parents). This paradoxical nature peculiar character 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 todaythis relationship.

==Transference and Jacques Lacan=Treatment===Lacan's thinking about [[transferenceFreud]] goes through several stages. His was first work to deal with struck by the subject in any detail is '''An Intervention on intensity of the Transference[[patient]]'','<ref>Lacan, 1951</ref> in which he describes s [[affect]]ive reactions to the transference doctor in [[dialecticBreuer]]al terms borrowed from 's [[Hegeltreatment]]. He criticises of [[ego-psychologyAnna O]] for defining in 1882, which he argued was due to the transference in terms of [[affectpatient]] transferring [[unconscious]]s; "Transference does not refer to any mysterious property of affect, and even when it reveals itself under ideas onto the appearance of emotion, it only acquires meaning by virtue of the dialectical moment in which it is produceddoctor."<ref>{{EcF}} 225(1895d) With Josef Breuer. ''[[Sigmund Freud|Bibliography|Studies on Hysteria]]''. [[SE]] II.</ref>

In other words, Lacan argues that although transference often manifests itself in ====Resistance====As he developed the guise of particularly strong affectspsychoanalytic method, such as [[loveFreud]] and first regarded the [[hatetransference]], it does not consist of such emotions but in the exclusively as a [[structureresistance]] of an intersubjective relationship. This structural definition of transference remains a constant theme throughout which impedes the rest recall of Lacan's work; he consistently locates the essence of transference in the [[symbolicrepression|repressed]] and not in the [[imaginarymemories]], 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 an obstacle to the [[love of knowledgetreatment]] which must be "destroyed".<ref>{{F}} (''savoir''1905e [1901]) that is concerned"[[Sigmund Freud:Bibliography|Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria]]." [[SE]] VII, 3: 116</ref>

Lacan returns Gradually, however, he modified this view, coming to see the subject of the [[transference in the seminar of 1953-4. This time he conceives it not in terms borrowed from Hegelian dialectics but in terms borrowed from ]] also as a positive factor which helps the [[anthropologytreatment]] to [[progress]] of exchange.<ref>Mauss, LÈvi-Strauss</ref>

Transference is implicit ====Progress====The positive value of [[transference]] lies in the fact that it provides a way for the [[speech actanalysand]], which involves an exchange 's history to be confronted in the immediacy of the present relationship with the [[signanalyst]]s that transforms ; in 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 way he relates to another in an authentic and full manner, there is, in the true sense, transference[[analyst]], symbolic transference - something which takes place which changes the nature of [[analysand]] inevitably repeats earlier relationships with other figures (especially those with the two beings presentparents).<ref>{{S1}} 109</ref>

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. ==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>{{S4}} p. 135; {{S8}} p. 204</ref> [[Lacan]]'s next approach to the subject of [[transference]] is in the eighth year of his [[seminar]],<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> 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]]?

According to this view, transference Certainly not; [[Lacan]] affirms that "it is the attribution of knowledge natural to interpret the Othertransference, 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."<ref>{{S11E}} 232p. 271</ref>but at the same time he harbours no [[illusion]]s about the power of such [[interpretation]]s to dissolve the [[transference]].

Although the existence of the transference is a necessary condition of psychoanalytic treatmentLike any other [[interpretation]], it is not sufficient in itself; it is also necessary that the [[analyst deal with the transference ]] must use all his [[art]] in a unique way. It is this that differentiates psychoanalysis from deciding if and when to [[suggestioninterpret]]; although both are based on the [[transference]], psychoanalysis differs from suggestion because the analyst refuses and above all must avoid gearing his [[interpretation]]s exclusively to use the power given to him by [[interpreting]] the [[transference]].<ref>{{E}} 236</ref>

From quite early on in the history of psychoanalysis it became common He must also know exactly what he is seeking to achieve by such an [[interpretation]]; not to distinguish between those aspects of rectify 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 ]], but to all aspects of maintain 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[[discourse|analytic dialogue]]."<ref>Edward Bibring, Elizabeth Zeztel</ref>

Other analysts argued that <blockquote>"What does it mean, to interpret the term 'transference' should be restricted ? Nothing else than to fill the 'unrealistic' or 'irrational' reactions void of the analysand (William Silverberg, Franz Alexander)this deadlock with a lure. HoweverBut while it may be deceptive, 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 lure serves a purpose 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 setting off the patient was reacting to itwhole process again. 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"<ref>{{Ec}} p.225</ref></blockquote>

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 When describing 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 [[transference]] as 'the part that thinks as we do'.<ref>E"positive" or "negative", 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[Lacan]] to sustain a praxis in an authentic manner results, as is usually the case with mankind, in the exercise of powertakes two different approaches."<ref>E, 226</ref>

2.The idea that the analysand's 'distorted perception of the analyst' could be liquidated by means of interpretations is a logical fallacyFollowing [[Freud]], since the transference is interpreted on [[Lacan]] sometimes uses these adjectives to refer to the basis nature of, and with the instrument of[[affect]]s, the transference itself.<ref>{{S8}} 206</ref> In other words, there is no "[[metalanguagetransference|positive transference]] of the " referring to loving affects and "[[transference, no vantage point outside the |negative 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 referring to be[[aggressivity|aggressive]] [[affect]]s."<ref>{{EEc}} 231p. 222</ref>

Does this mean that Lacanian analysts never interpret Sometimes, however, [[Lacan]] takes the transference? Certainly not; Lacan affirms that terms "positive" and "negative"it is natural to interpret refer to the favourable or unfavourable effects of the [[transference,"]] on the [[treatment]]<ref>{{E}} 271</ref> but at (where [[Lacan]] argues that when the same time he harbours no illusions about the power of such interpretations to dissolve the transference. Like any other interpretation[[analysand]]'s [[resistance]] opposes [[suggestion]], the analyst this [[resistance]] must use all his art be "placed in deciding if and when to interpret the transference, and above all must avoid gearing his interpretations exclusively to interpreting ranks of the positive transference. He must also know exactly what he is seeking to achieve by such an interpretation; not to rectify " on the patient's relationship to reality, but to maintain the analytic dialogue. "What does grounds that it mean, to interpret the transference? Nothing else than to fill maintains the void direction of this deadlock with a lure. But while it may be deceptive, this lure serves a purpose by setting off the whole process again[[analysis]])."<ref>{{Ec}} 225</ref>

Sometimes, however, Although [[Lacan takes the terms 'positive' and 'negative' to refer to the favourable or unfavourable effects ]] does speak occasionally of the transference on the treatment<ref>see E, 271</ref> (where Lacan argues that when the analysand's resistance opposes suggestion[[countertransference]], he generally prefers not to use this resistance must be 'placed in the ranks of the positive transference' on the grounds that it maintains the direction of the analysis)term.

Although Lacan does speak occasionally of ==See Also=={{See}}* [[countertransferenceAffect]], he generally prefers not to use this term.* [[Aggressivity]]||* [[Analysand]]* [[Counter-transference]]||* [[Knowledge]]* [[Interpretation]]||* [[Progress]]* [[Resistance]]||* [[Suggestion]]* [[Treatment]]{{Also}}