You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
AS AN INTRODUCTION I WOULD LIKE to make a few general remarks about transference as I see it. Transference, in my view, is a very special mental quality that has never been satisfactorily explained. I am not satisfied, for instance, either with what has been written about it or with its use in analysis. To me, our knowledge seems slight, and our use limited. This view, admittedly extreme, is possible only because transference is such a very remarkable phenomenon, with a great and largely undeveloped potential. I am particularly taken with the as yet unexplored idea that transference is a universal mental function which may well be the basis of all human relationships. I even suspect it of being one of the mind's main agencies for giving birth to new ideas, and new life to old ones. In these several respects, transference would seem to me to assume characteristics of a major ego function.
I tend to go along with those who consider transference unique as it occurs in the analytic situation, and with those who hold that the analysis and resolution of a transference neurosis is the only avenue to the farthest reaches of the mind. It is also my belief that transference, in one form or another, is always present, active, and significant in the analytic situation. From this it should follow that rarely is there a need to give up on the transference or to doubt that everything that goes on in analysis has a transference meaning. I would also be inclined to agree with those, perhaps few in number, who harbor the idea that analysts themselves regularly develop transference reactions to their patients, including periods of transference neurosis, and that these transference reactions play an essential role in the analytic process.