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 structure of this scholarly paper is clear from its final paragraph, in which Abend writes that if, as Freud says, we are still convinced that “understanding the patient's past is essential to an effective comprehension of his or her present circumstances,” then it follows that an “analogous historical approach” (Abend 2009, p. 891) is valuable to understanding analytic theory. The form chosen, therefore, is that of an argumentation in the sense developed by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (2001): argumentation means to affect, through discourse, the intensity of the listener's agreement with specific theses. Although objections could be raised concerning the logical obligation of correspondence between premise and conclusion, I agree with the inferential process proposed by Abend: I think that a critical-historical examination of a concept is useful in any discipline, but it is particularly important in ours.
The author thus guides us along two routes: the first is the evolution of Freudian thought on the discovery and elucidation of the concept of transference; the second is an outline of Freudian theories on therapeutic action. The two routes certainly overlap, especially since the question to which Abend wants to find an answer is whether it is necessary to adhere to the Freudian thesis stating that only through the analysis of transference “could emotional conviction about the nature of the troublesome unconscious impulses be obtained” (Abend, p. 886). This