PSYCHOAN Archives

Psychoanalysis

PSYCHOAN@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Psychoanalysis <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 17 May 1998 11:31:41 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
In a message dated 98-05-17 09:55:38 EDT, you write:

<< Going out from the basic priciples of psychoanalysis and applying some of
 the methods used in the practice of analysis, one can self-analyse.
     What I can't figure out is what happens to the transference. is
 transference to yourself usefull ? Does it ocure ? Isn't it just a form of
 narcissism ?

 Best regards,
 CIP >>

Cip--

It might be easier to understand this when you remind yourself that
transference is an intrapsychic phenomenon (although I realize this is a
matter of debate).  It's an expression of internal wishes, fears, fantasies,
etc. which become attached, experientially, to another person.  But what is
another "person," analytically speaking?  It is an "internal object" which we
experience as external to ourselves.  From this angle, you can see that while
transference in a therapy relationship can intensify and illuminate it for
analytic exploration, transference is no less present in other relationships,
and is quite alive even when we are with ourselves--since when we are alone,
we still have thoughts, feelings, expectations, etc. about "other people"
(internal objects).

To the degree that transference interferes with our capacity to experience
people with freshness and openness, and impedes our appreciation of them as
separate, unique individuals--it _is_ narcissistic.  However, the philosophic
problem is that defining transference as a "distortion" of reality presupposes
that reality is fixed and knowable.  In other words, to my knowledge,
psychoanalysis has still not offered a good standard for what constitutes
"non-transference,"  or "authentic relatedness."
I think the existential analysts have addressed this more fruitfully.

So in self-analysis, transference will be no less present--only it will reveal
itself in the absence of another person.  To give a concrete example:  I still
think about my analyst and have thoughts, feelings, and fantasies about
him--despite the fact that I
terminated my analysis in 1991.

I hope this helps to clarify matters.

David Mittelman

ATOM RSS1 RSS2