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.
In order to find out where differences in technique lie, we must discuss the way in which we apply the fundamental principle of analysis, that is to say the kind of approach each of us has in analysing unconscious mental processes, transference, resistance and repression, infantile sexuality, the Oedipus complex, etc. Since we have agreed that this first statement should be a short one, I am selecting only two characteristics of my technique; even so I shall have to do this in an epigrammatic way.
From my work with young children I came to certain conclusions which have to some extent influenced my technique with adults. Take transference first. I found that with children the transference (positive or negative) is active from the beginning of the analysis, since for instance even an attitude of indifference cloaks anxiety and hostility. With adults too (mutatis mutandis) I found that the transference situation is present from the start in one way or another, and I came, therefore, to make use of transference interpretations early in the analysis.
In my experience, the transference situation permeates the whole actual life of the patient during the analysis. When the analytic situation has been established, the analyst takes the place of the original objects, and the patient, as we know, deals again with the feelings and conflicts which are being revived, with the very defences he used in the original situation. While repeating, therefore, in relation to the analyst some of his early feelings, phantasies, and sexual desires, he displaces others from the analyst to different people and situations. The result is that the transference phenomena are in part being diverted from the analysis. In other words, the patient is