Search

Freud's technical papers, "The Dynamics of Transference" in particular, established most of the basis for a century of clinical psychoanalytic work. A contemporary reading of that paper illustrates both the power of the original presentation and how far we have come. Close readings are given of crucial passages, including retranslations where Strachey's English arguably distorts Freud's language or intent. More broadly, Freud's conclusions are examined to reveal correspondences with current thinking or its foreshadowing. Although Freud drove toward unifying conclusions, he at the same time described a disparate array of clinical phenomena. The paper's central points are situated historically, both in Freud's evolution and in the subsequent evolution toward the pluralistic clinical theory of today. Freud encountered many of the challenges we face, noting them in ways both clinically useful and fruitful for other theorists. The use of the paper's central tenets is traced historically, showing how ideas that provide a radical, liberating, and facilitating guide for analysts can over time devolve into hackneyed rules. Finally, it is noted how transference phenomena are increasingly being discussed as a specific type of dyadic human experience. The task in the coming century is to develop theory and vocabulary for comprehending these phenomena and integrating them with Freud's intrapsychic concepts.

As multiple theoretical models contend on the American analytic scene, the holding function of theory emerges as a unifying theme. In addition to supplying an intellectual superstructure for the working analyst, theory provides a psychological presence--a sense of conviction, affective stability, reassurance, and self-esteem--that makes effective analytic work possible from the analyst's side. Ideological passions and differences arise from the vital need for the holding function in an intense and inchoate engagement like psychoanalysis. To show how adherents of different models use theory in practice, three clinical cases are reviewed, one from Betty Joseph, one from Lewis Aron, and one from the author. The last example reconstructs the analyst's subjective experience of treatment both in the selected hours and in terms of the analyst's preconscious use of theory.

The psychoanalyst's expectations of the patient are complex and crucial to the work of analysis. These expectations, operating at a level generally outside the consciousness of patient and analyst, are part of the "microstructure" of analysis, the interactional give-and-take that brings about change. The view taken here is that analytic process is necessarily interactive, as well as intrapsychic. In addition to transference-countertransference motivations, both parties to an analysis operate in a social context that prescribes a range of desired and undesired behavior. The analyst brings to the interaction professional analytic attitudes about how to listen and act, and a set of expectations of the patient. These attitudes and expectations modulate subjective reactions to the patient's transferentially driven actions, and influence the expression of countertransference. The mutative process of psychoanalysis involves the action of these attitudes and expectations on the patient, both in ways specific to individuals and in more general ways. Such expectations lie behind analytic tactics and, though not often written of, are part of the oral tradition of psychoanalysis. Here the expected patient role is described in terms of five bipolar continua: (1) reporting and editing; (2) transferring and containing; (3) thinking about oneself and thinking about the analyst; (4) regressing and listening/self-observing; (5) initiating trial action and mediating among inner states. The activity and thinking of the dyad move constantly along these continua. A clinical example from the beginning of an hour illustrates how these expectancies emerge in analytic work.

Recognition of the analyst's subjective involvement has led to profound reconsideration of the nature of mutative process. How is it that the analyst can be personally involved in an unconscious way, yet also be an "objective" participant in the relationship? The paper proposes that the analyst's subjectivity is mediated by his or her role. The analytic role conditions how the analyst listens, experiences, and behaves, leading to interactive outcomes different from that expectable from unmodified subjectivity. The paper describes the analytic role in terms of contributions from metapsychology, clinical theory, and tactics. Each affects the function of the analyst-at-work in a different way. The analytic role, learned during training, is maintained by a combination of internalization and ongoing involvement in psychoanalytic activities. A clinical illustration demonstrates how a typical transference-countertransference enactment is influenced by the analytic role. The vignette suggests ways in which the concept of role modifies the effect of subjectivity. Three recent viewpoints--those of Renik, Ehrenberg, and Hoffman--that challenge previous theories of mutative process are discussed in terms of the analytic role. In each case, consideration of role clarifies the nature of the innovative technique or view, and seeming contradictions between it and existing clinical theory.