On the Writings of Arnold M. Cooper

June 22, 1987

In a series of recent articles and addresses including the one in this Journal (35:77-98), Dr. Cooper has been attempting to integrate previously divergent psychoanalytic theories. He is one of few classically trained analysts who publicly sees strong contemporary relevance in the work of the interpersonal school as well as the British object relations theorists and the American self psychologists. His sympathetic

attitude toward recent contributions to the understanding of the key concept of transference is an example of this.

The handling of transference is emblematic of how the analyst acts with the patient and how one acts reflects one's belief system. As Sandler (1983) points out, every analyst's true theory is seen in his/her private actions with his/her patients. The way transference is viewed not only reflects one's technique, but one's whole model of the mind. Following Sandler, there may be differences between analysts' private actions and public declarations. The position one takes vis-à-vis transference will reveal whether one is truly a classical, blank-screen analyst; an interpersonal, participant-observer; an object-relational, container, or a self psychologist, self-object.

My second comment relates to some difference in my view of what distinguishes the "historical" and "modernist" views of transference. As Cooper delineates this distinction, the separation between the two views is not sufficiently clear. The modernist point of view, most clearly characterized by Wolstein (1954), Gill (1982), and Hoffman (1983) not only sees transference as a new experience, but views psychoanalytic change largely as a function of a new experience between patient and analyst. Transference is indeed seen as a repetition of the old relationships, just as it is in the historical view. The past is always seen as influencing the present. It is the concept of distortion that is challenged. From this perspective called modernist, the analyst can ne