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.
Dear Sirs,
In reply to Dr Fingert Chused's interesting question. I can only agree that the pleasure of being attractive and seductive in the case of the patient presented by Dr Barros is quite obvious. I would even add, if you pardon the ‘Witz’, that ‘it goes without saying’. The question indeed is whether such a general trait of the patient's attitude should be the target of the analyst's interpretive activity. In other words, what use can the analyst make of the remark that, indeed, ‘the lady doth protest too much’?
My way of dealing with the problem would be, very simply, to ask myself if this is the main—and workable—aspect of the transference, the one I must address at the present phase of the analysis lest we run into a dead end. Obviously, in the actual case, Dr Barros is best able to provide arguments in favour of or against any decision on this matter. I only wish to stress that, generally speaking, the analyst may well be aware of the pleasure highlighted by Dr Chused and nevertheless choose to make no reference to it, unless it becomes the main aspect of resistance. What if, for instance, it turned out that the seductiveness displayed is the last resort of an otherwise fragile narcissistic structure? I suggest it should then be left in the background, at least as long as it serves the basic positive transference without which no analysis can occur.