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.
Currently, there is controversy about the nature of the therapeutic or working alliance. Some insist, with Freud (1912), that of the three aspects of transference— the negative transference, the positive but conflict-ridden transference, and the positive none-rotic unobjectionable transference—the latter can be used to develop a therapeutic alliance** (Freud, 1937; Greenson, 1965; Meissner, 1992; Miller, 1987; Zetzel, 1956/1970). Others object to even the unobjectionable aspect of the transference: this too should be subjected to further analysis (Dewaid, 1976; Shapiro, 1989; Stein, ). Adherents to the alliance argue about whether it is found predominantly at the beginning of the treatment (Greenson, 1965; Zetzel, 1956/1970), or near the end (Friedman, 1969). Gutheil and Havens (1979) even suggest that the transference alliance be divided into six categories; Miller (1987) suggests that it is better cast in selfobject terms; Stewart (1987) argues that it can be fostered where there are structural deficits; Brenner (1979) that it should not be fostered; Dewaid (1976) that it is a new accretion unrelated to transference, a “real” relationship. Are those who wish to subject this unobjectionable phenomenon to further analysis bordering on therapeutic zeal? Is the unobjectionable transference an aspect of secondary autonomous function that Rapaport (1951) suggested should not be subjected to interpretation, at least with more primitive patients?
It is ironic and troublesome that we have no consensus on developing a strong working relationship. Whether it is called working or therapeutic alliance or “real relationship, “analysts