Analysis of the Transference: Implications for Theory and Research

In this review, after commenting on my agreements and disagreements with Gill and Hoffman's presentations, I wish to outline some of the implications that this excellent work has for the theory of technique and the practice of psychoanalysis. What is most interesting in this presentation is that the authors provide us, in Volume II (Gill & Hoffman, 1982), with verbatim transcripts. Not only do they demonstrate what therapists who are proponents of the centrality of transference do in analytic or therapy hours, but they also contrast this material with hours representative of therapists who do not necessarily espouse this principle. I have elsewhere, (1984) agreed with Gill's (1982) statements that (1) priority should be given to the analysis of resistance to the awareness of the transference, and (2) that instead of resolving the transference by relating it to contemporary, genetic, or extratransference material, further work should be done to clarifying it within the analytic situation. This would include aspects of the transference not yet in awareness and can be accomplished by further assessing features of the analytic situation that might conceal transference and countertransference attitudes. Some writers (Stone, 1981) think that the emphasis on the here-and-now runs the risk of devaluating the importance of the past, either in pathogenesis or in the analytic process. Gill