Letter

Dear Sir,

Dr Mollon raises a number of important issues in his thoughtful letter. The distinction between recovery of memory and reconstruction on the basis of transference is an important one, which should not be blurred. The editorial did not suggest that creating meaning, in elaborating transference in terms of childlike ways of relating, was not a helpful part of the analytic process. It is the concretisation of this aim that is risky. Identifying transference patterns as the past is explored is qualitatively different from exploring the past in order to understand transference. Dr Mollon is undoubtedly correct that the picture that emerges from exploring the transference may be different from a picture of childhood consciously accessible to the patient. The risk is trying to persuade the patient that the emergent picture is the accurate one. For example, the transference may indicate a pattern consistent with childhood seduction, but this cannot be thought to confirm that seduction took place. Recovered memories should therefore be treated with suspicion; potentially they are by-products of focusing on specific patterns of transference relationship, especially when trying to establish an historical explanation for current difficulties. Recovery of memories is of great significance, not as explanations for current patterns but as material that serves to enlighten us further about the nature of the transference relationship.

Yours sincerely

Peter Fonagy

Psychoanalysis Unit

Sub-Department of Clinical Health

Psychology

University College

Torrington Place

London WC1E 6BT