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.
The ‘Opening and closing remarks’ were Paula Heimann’s contribution as moderator to the plenary session of the 26th International Psycho-Analytical Congress, Rome, 1969, that discussed the pre-published paper by Ralph R.Greenson and Milton Wexler, ‘The non-transference relationship in the psychoanalytic situation’, International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 50 (1) (1969). The contributions to the discussion were published in the International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 51 (2) (1970).
The authors’ new contribution to psychoanalysis is stated boldly as a paradox: in order to facilitate the development, blossoming, and resolution of the transference neurosis, the analyst must facilitate the development of a relationship which is ‘real’ and not based on transference.
The analytic situation has two parts: the patient’s ‘transference neurosis’ and the ‘working alliance’. When the latter is in progress, the patient is not neurotic, fully related to contemporary matters, and works with his analyst on his problems constructively and unimpeded by his neurosis. The two components can alternate within one and the same session (as illustrated), but during the period of the ‘working alliance’ patient and analyst have a ‘real’ relationship with one another.
Mind you, the ‘real’ of the ‘real’ non-transference relationship is framed by inverted commas.
In contrast to the transference neurosis, the ‘real’ non-transference relationship is not to be subjected to analysis. To put it bluntly, it is not to be interpreted away. It is to be encouraged and maintained. Taken literally, analysis then depends on and presupposes not analysing certain sectors of the patient-analyst relationship. However, this first stark statement is followed by careful considerations which provide ample scope for debate, shared reconsideration and, possibly, revision of the original presentation. In my further
remarks I shall refer to the authors’ views (of which you have been reminded just now) very briefly as the