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.
Rappaport discusses Blitzsten's statement that the appearance of the analyst in the first dream of the patient, in undisguised form, is a bad prognostic sign for the analysis; the patient may then be unable to distinguish the present analytic situation from a childhood relationship. There is danger that the patient will experience the analyst not as if he were the parent image but as the parent himself. Unless the situation can be clarified and worked through early, analysis may not be possible and the patient may have to be sent to another analyst. The relationship of the patient to the analyst in these situations is called an erotized transference; the patient insists that the analyst be his parent, and expects love from him without exerting any effort. In some instances aspects of the analyst's physical appearance or his attitudes to the patient may contribute to the inability to distinguish past from present. Rappaport reports a successful analysis in which the analyst did appear undisguised in the first dream. Looking back at the patient's first dream, Rappaport is able to discern favorable prognostic elements which indicated that the erotized transference had not developed in the complete form.