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 Editors,
I am in agreement with Drs Baeuerlen and Grossman that our technical jargon often becomes an obstacle and serves to cover up the actual work that is conducted in our treatment rooms. I am repeatedly frustrated after reading clinical vignettes wondering how the analyst actually interacted with his or her patient. I am frequently left feeling hungry for the details of what transpired in the moment. So, that said, why did I explain an extremely important portion of my work with Géorgie by a simple phrase: “… I interpreted his rage in the transference …”? You listed several possible meanings of this phrase and questioned what I might have said to my young patient that may have contributed to helping him metabolize some of his aggression.
I have written a full case presentation (Smolen, 2009) about my work with Géorgie where I elaborate and illustrate several themes that became the focal point of his analysis through the four years. In The Analyst at Work, I presented a summary of our work. The infamous phrase: “… I interpreted his rage in the transference …” is analytic shorthand, a way of communicating