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.
GABBARD OPENED THE PANEL by stating that Freud viewed hate as occupying a central position in the pathogenesis of the neuroses, yet Freud's writings are remarkably sketchy on the problem of the technical handling of transference hate. Freud made no secret of the fact that the phenomenon of hate presented him with vexing metapsychological problems. He felt that hate was developmentally older than love and derived from the narcissistic ego's primitive rejection of stimuli coming from the external world. These postulated origins of hate linked it in an intimate way to the self-preservative instincts. This formulation enabled Freud to draw a parallel between the antithesis of love and hate and that of the sexual and ego instincts. With the ascendancy of the structural model, the ego drives became less important, and he shifted his view to see hate as a manifestation of the death instinct.
Freud's first comment on the issue of hate in the transference appears in a rather surprising place—Jensen's Gradiva, where Freud (1907) states "… in analytic psychotherapy too the re-awakened passion, whether it is love or hate, invariably chooses as its object the figure of the doctor" (p. 90). In his autobiographical study, Freud (1925) comments on the extremes of transference feelings, noting that, on the one hand, the patient may feel passionate love of extraordinary intensity toward the analyst while, on the other hand, the analyst may be the target of "the unbridled expression of an embittered defiance and hatred" (p. 42). Gabbard pointed out that transference hate is not a monolithic entity. It may vary greatly in intensity depending on the patient and on the phase of the analysis. He analogized to Blum's (1973) distinction between erotic and erotized transference. In the erotic transference the patient views gratification as