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.
Since Strachey's fundamental paper of 1934 with its central postulate that only transference interpretations have 'mutative' effects, the question of the position and significance of transference interpretation in the analytical process has dominated the debate about the theory and technique of psychoanalysis. On the other hand, conspicuously little attention has been paid to the question of the position and significance of non-transference interpretations or extratransference interpretations, i.e. following Gill's (1982) classification, the interpretation of current situations outside the relationship with the analyst, as well as genetic interpretation. The more importance was attributed to interpretation of the transference and to the here and now, the greater was the inclination to regard other interpretations as performing solely a complementary and supporting function in the sense of promoting and preparing the 'actual' transference interpretation, and some even adopted positions whereby interpretations not directly related to the transference and to the here and now were regarded as superfluous, ineffective or even detrimental because they could not but distract from the 'essence' of the analytical process, namely, analysis of the transference and of resistance. However, such extreme 'transference-only' positions have remained controversial to this day.
It is certainly accepted that every analyst in his daily practice gives not only interpretations directed towards the transference and the here and now but also interpretations which concern situations and relationships outside the analysis in the present and in the past, and that this need not necessarily be immediately regarded as a displacement or flight from the transference. Strachey himself, despite the significance he attributed to transference interpretation, regarded such interpretations as 'none the less essential' (Strachey, 1934, p. 290). Yet, apart from the comprehensive contribution of Blum (1