Back to Table of Contents
experiences of transference gratification which may be very difficult for the analyst to detect, and even more difficult for the patient to surrender. There are some varieties of transference wish that are not as much subject to disappointment and frustration by the limits of the analytic situation as are others, i.e., the wish to be taken seriously by an attentive listener. This poses a technical problem that deserves further study. I believe that it is advantageous to search for such hidden transferences on a case-by-case, individual basis, without employing any potentially restrictive formula derived from the analyst’s preferred developmental schema…” (Abend, 1993, p. 644). Writing from the contemporary Freudian perspective, Steven J. Ellman and Michael Moskowitz (Ellman & Moskowitz, 2008; Ellman 2007) link the repetitive character of transference to seeing treatment in terms of transference cycles in relation to analytic trust, true self, conflicts and object relationships: “… each new cycle involves at least a partial renewal of analytic trust. The trust is bidirectional, and the analyst’s trust of the patient involves helping or standing aside while the patient finds her or his own voice and constructs reality in his or her idiosyncratic fashion. Thus, reality is experienced as constructed … Nevertheless, the patient’s conflicts and true self are seen as mainly contained within the patient. How the interaction is constructed depends on the particular analytic pair, but we believe there is a true self that is not a construction.... Each transference cycle begins a new aspect of an object relationship in which trust is reinforced from two different directions. Initially the analyst enters the patient’s world and when a natural separation is found and tolerated, each member of the pair begins to voice their views of the relationship. Being able to utilize the other is in our mind a crucial aspect of the benefits of insight in the analytic situation ….” (Ellman and Moskowitz, 2008, p. 825). VI. D. Interpretive Focus: Transference versus Extratransference As noted in the introduction, the question has been raised concerning to what extent is transference analysis the exclusively effective form of interpretation and its corollary, should the analyst’s interpretive activity be limited exclusively to interventions concerning transference. While there are some North American analysts today who prioritize transference interpretations as the therapeutically effective ones, most feel that there are many problems in the patient’s life that may draw the analyst’s attention because they are affectively dominant in the communications of the hour and are linked with the transference. Notable representative of those who strongly prioritize transference as exclusive focus of analyst’s interventions is Paul Gray (1973,1994, 1996, 2005), whose ‘ close process attention’ of the defensive functioning of the verbal flow of each session focuses on transference analysis revolving around concerns for the analyst’s possible judgmental reactions, within the structural conflict paradigm. Gray (1973) postulated that “the analyst’s primary goal is always the analysis of the patient’s psyche, not the patient’s life” (p. 477), maintaining a focus on the psychological reality ‘inside’ the analysis. All else was viewed as a potential ‘defensive flight to reality’. The analyst was to focus on the flow of the associations, in order not to interfere with the development of the transference neurosis.
1077
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online