Transference as Defense

I had intended to title this paper “The Dynamics of Transference,” until I realized that this was precisely the title Freud used in introducing the subject. Perhaps no subject in psychoanalysis has been as thoroughly explored and examined as the subject of transference. For Freud, transference was one of the defining qualities of psychoanalysis. Today analysis of the transference in the therapeutic situation remains the central technical imperative, as enunciated by Freud. He made this clear on many occasions. “Finally,” he said, “every conflict has to be fought out in the sphere of transference” (Freud 1912a, p. 104). He advised beginning analysts not to worry about being able to make the correct interpretation of material. That happens automatically and with little effort. The important thing is to keep one's eye on the transference (1912b). One does not communicate any interpretation,” he wrote, “until a dependable transference has developed.… the first stage of treating consists of attaching [the patient] to the treatment and to the person of the physician. To ensure this, one need do nothing but allow him time.” In characteristic fashion, Freud summed up his attitude on the subject in an epigram: “For when all is said and done, it is impossible to destroy anyone in absentia or in effigy” (Freud 1912a, p. 108).

Although much has changed in psychoanalysis over the years, the basic influence of these ideas has persisted. Our teaching about transference remains fundamentally unchanged as regards the course of the psychoanalytic process. Characteristically, analytic treatment is divided into three phases. In the first, or opening, phase, the analyst learns about the patient's difficulty. In the second phase, the analyst is instructed tor the most part to do whatever possible to strengthen the transference attachment. Then, “when … the treatment has obtained mastery over the patient, … the whole of his illness's new production is concentrated upon a single point—his r