Reply to Gloria Friedman

To the Editor:

FRIEDMAN'S (1987) CRITIQUE OF MY PAPER, "Transference and character (1987) contains many serious distortions. Through these distortions she misrepresents my position, and then argues with a position that I never put forward to begin with. Her distortions are of two kinds. There are specific errors such as misquotes, and errors in reading my text carefully. An example of the first type of distortion occurs when Dr. Friedman, (using some pyrotechnics) says "I believe that he is on thin ice when he states that transference is only useful in revealing personality 'flaws'." In fact, the only time I use the word "flaw" is in describing how the Classical approach would deal with transference, not the way an interpersonalist would approach the patient (p. 510).

Having read my paper inaccurately, she comes to the erroneous conclusion that "… the everyday manifestations of character that occur in any given session between analyst and patient would not be addressed by Dr. Cooper." The error is clear when compared to what I actually say on p. 512:

Character change begins early in analysis and continues throughout the process. Some aspects of character will show up in the relationship with the analyst and can be worked on in the transference. Other aspects of character can be observed and worked on when the patient describes life outside of analysis. Thus, both transference and character can be worked on directly in analysis. This two-pronged approach provides the broadest view of the patient. It provides the maximum opportunity to help people become aware of, and change their way of relating to the significant people in their lives.

The essence of her criticism occurs when Friedman says that I do "not see transference as central to the analytic process." This last comment goes to the heart of the matter, and is the central point of my paper. Namely, that from an interpersonal point of view, both the analytic relationship and life outside of analysis need