Fundamentals of Psychoanalytic Technique
精神分析技術的基本原則 p141

布魯斯 芬克

How to Handle Transference

Nevertheless, the majority 大多數 of analysts seem to have fallen in with Freud’s ( 19 1 3/ 1 958) point of view that we must interpret the transference whenever it begins to lead to resistance 阻抗:


So long as the patients communications 溝通 and ideas run on 進行 without any obstruction 阻礙, the theme of transference should be left untouched 沒有碰觸. One must wait until the transference, [the handling of] which is the most delicate of all procedures 程式, has become a resistance 阻抗. (p. 1 39)


They seem not to have realized that an interpretation 解釋of the transference that comes from the transferential object herself, the analyst, is not a way out of the transference but simply reproduces 複製 the transference; for, as Lacan (2006, p. 59 1 ) said, ‘The analyst’s speech is [always] heard as coming from the transferential Other.”


If, for example, the analyst has become associated 聯想 with a critical重要的 parental figure, her interpretation will be heard as critical 重要; if she has become associated with a seductive誘拐 maternal 母親figure, her interpretation will be heard as seductive. We do not achieve some sort ‘of metaposition 形上位置 outside of the transference by interpreting it (the claims of therapists like Levenson, 1 995, p. 88, that we can “metacommunicate” 形上溝通 notwithstanding雖然).


We remain up to our ears 忙碌於 in the transference. As Lacan ( 1967-1968, November 29, 1 967) said, there is “no transference of the transference,” meaning that–just as there is no position outside o f language that allows us to discuss language as a whole without having to rely on language itself in our discussion-there is no way in which we can step completely outside the transference situation in order to discuss what is happening in the transference itself (see also Lacan, 1 998b, p. 428).


The interpretation of transference is a vicious cycle 惡性循環! Analysts have tried to get around this vicious cycle by dividing the analysand into two parts: the “experiencing ego” and the “observing 觀察 ego” (Sterba, 1 934).


The trick 竅訣, in their view, is to invite the observing ego, which they consider to be “rational 理性,” to step outside of the transference (which is presumably 假定 engaged in by the experiencing ego alone) into some kind of metaspace 形上空間 , a space outside of the transference where analyst and analysand can meet as “reasonable” observing egos and agree upon what is happening between the irrational, unreasonable, experiencing egos who are caught up in 忙於 the transference/countertransference. 16


It may sound like I am being ironic 反諷here, but many authors 作者speak in precisely 確實these terms, as if “rational 理性,” “irrational,” “reasonable,” and “unreasonable” were simple, serviceable服務 categories1 範疇7 that could be unproblematically associated with one or another of the psychical agencies 代理, and as if–even if an agreement as to what is going on could be reached between reasonable, “dispassionate 冷靜,” observing egos taking a “time out” from the hothouse 溫室 of the transference relationship–it would change anything when they return to the hothouse (apart from encouraging the analysand to suppress 壓抑 any and all transference reactions 反動 in the future) .


The analysand is likely to remain just as hypersensitive 過度敏感 to criticism as he was before, for example, but he may begin to “talk himself down” from his high dudgeon 生氣 when he remembers his discussion with the analyst to the effect that he constantly 不斷地felt criticized批評 by his father as a child, which is the origin 起源of his hypersensitivity to criticism today.


The upshot 結局 is that he will still get very angry but will learn how to suppress 壓抑 his anger after the fact instead of acting on it. Or he will still experience women’s comments to him as invariably 一成不變 seductive 誘拐 but will learn how to “reason with himself,” reminding himself on each occasion that he experiences their comments that way because of things that occurred with his mother. Such is the usefulness (or uselessness, as the case may be) of enlisting 徵召 the aid of the analysand’s observing ego!


Gill ( 1 982) is one of the foremost proponents 提議者, in the non-Kleinian analytic world (I will discuss Klein later in this chapter), of the systematic interpretation of transference, yet he acknowledged something (which he appeared to view as a simple anomaly or curiosity, even though he repeated it numerous times in the course of his book) that seems to corroborate Lacan’s view that it is generally pointless to interpret the transference.


Gill indicated that in the transcripts of complete sessions he provided in volume 2 of his work, one can see “how regularly the analysis of the transference has its own repercussions on the transference–often repercussions which result in an enactment of the very patterns of interactions to which the interpretations refer”



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: