Interpretation in the Analytical Space

It has often been said that Freud discovered transference with the analysis of Dora. As a matter of fact, we know that as early as Studies in Hysteria Freud not only knew of transference, but the fourth chapter of this work, devoted to the psychotherapy of hysteria, showed a very clear understanding of the transferential phenomenon and of its repetitive nature. It is even more interesting to note that Breuer himself—in spite of the transferential mishap which brought the treatment of Anna O. to an abrupt finish (or perhaps because of this mishap)—was thoroughly convinced that the discovery of transference was the newest and most important idea brought forth in their work. Nevertheless, while it may not be wrong to say that Freud discovered transference during Dora's cure, it would be more precise to say that he rediscovered it. Moreover, when such an important concept is forgotten, or minimized it is not without significance. It is also interesting to note here that the transference, discovered, forgotten, and rediscovered ten years after the end of Dora's analysis, was still considered by Freud as 'our cross'. Among the several reasons that may explain the mistrust shown to transference the most important is that this massive overflow of affects rendered the search for meaning more difficult. The appearance of the transference in the scope of the cure introduced, via the affective bonds which formed between patient and psychoanalyst, a wholly undesirable disorder in the analysis, the inherent difficulties of which were already considerable. The transference compelled one to deal with emotions felt towards the analyst which were displaced and obscured by their displacement. Often too vivid, they became unforeseeable and uncontrollable. What Freud aimed at in an analysis was to discover meanings. Like all other phenomena which threaten to trouble the analytic milieu, alter its transparency or increase the effects of diffraction, the transference is suspect