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.
As part of their criticism of psychoanalytic drive theory, the authors link it with definitions of transference which they find inadequate because of the reliance on single ideas or processes. These include an archaeological uncovering of repressed material that relies on disadvantageous energy theories, regression to an exact replica of infantile thought, displacements which are seen as entirely removing a wish from the infantile past to the present, or projection which psychically shifts unwanted wishes and representations onto another object. The "organizing activity" of transference is stressed as "a microcosm of the patient's total psychological life" which also organizes the analytic relationship. The transference cannot be eliminated or renounced. It must instead be clarified and reintegrated into the patient's life as he or she becomes healthier. Crucial to this are the selfobject transferences whose analysis is essential for the repair of incomplete "structuralization," i.e., defects caused by object ties being "inappropriately ruptured during formative years." Although there is a tendency to refer to drive concepts as part of the archaic past of psychoanalytic thought, they make their reappearance in this paper as "conflicts over loving, hatred, desiring and competing." Selfobject and drive aspects of the transference are described as being in a "subtly shifting figure-ground relationship" where both must be analyzed.