Author's Response

The six distinguished discussants have read my paper thoroughly, thought deeply about it, criticized it carefully—sometimes ruthlessly—and consequently have provided me with much food for thought.

I was particularly pleased to see that almost every discussant believed that interpretation outside the analytic relationship can be appropriate. This acknowledgment is particularly important since all the discussants agree, as do I, that the exploration and understanding of the regressive events within the analytic relationship constitute the sine qua non of a psychoanalysis.

Dr. Székely's views regarding extra-analytic transference are virtually identical with mine. His comments about the “possibility not merely of transference reactions, but even of transference neurosis proper, outside of the psychoanalytic situation,” is quite intriguing, and I hope that he will elaborate upon this idea in the future. Dr. Székely inquires why I do not raise the issue of acting out, and other discussants are interested in the same point. When I alluded to the well-known tendency to displace intra-analytic transference, I was, of course, also thinking of the acting out aspects.

Dr. Székely wonders about countertransference as a factor in the non-recognition of extra-analytic transference; I agree

that it is one of the factors. Narcissism and the consequent rigidity of conceptualization and intervention may play an important role in many such situations. In addition, however, inattention to extra-analytic transference may be the result of an analyst's theoretical orientation or of special characteristics of his psychoanalytic education.

Dr. Buxbaum apparently regards my paper as intuitive and somewhat naive. I cheerfully accept both designations. (Whether my naiveté is exceptional is a matter about which she and I might disagree.) I am particularly grateful to Dr. Buxbaum for referring to the views of Eduardo Weiss on the value of a “divided transference” and to those of Bouvet and Loewal