Transference and Sex

The question of the transference has been repeatedly discussed and for the most part misunderstood ever since psychoanalysis first brought it into prominence. While defined and elaborated by numerous authors, White puts it concisely in his “Foundations of Psychiatry” (page  116) when he says: “It (the transference) is understood to be the projection of the patient's affects upon the analyst…. As the different aspects of his personality are dealt with, the patient reacts toward the physician as he had reacted in his past towards those persons in his milieu for whom he thus felt love and hate. The physician thus acts like a catalyzer drawing forth the emotions of the patient and representing in his own person those persons who in the past had been objects of those emotions. “This catalytic action has been further emphasized by Taneyhill.

All agree that the nature of the transference fluctuates with the analysis, being strongly positive at times and strongly negative at times, according to the type of affect which the patient is objectifying. One occasionally encounters an individual who comes to each interview with a negative transfer. The resolution of this negative phase by thorough analysis of the causal factors during the interview may permit as successful an analysis as if it had all proceeded upon a patently positive basis. These cases are, however, exceedingly rare. O'Malley points out the great importance of a positive transfer when she says, “The success of psychotherapy depends to a great extent upon the transference and its nature, that is to say, whether it is positive or negative.” ( Transference and its Problems in the Psychoses,  Psychoanal. Rev., January, 1923, page  24.)

Obviously it is impossible to make a definite prediction at the outset as to what the prevailing nature of the transference will be in a given instance. It is impossible to see what form the resistance may take during the course of the analysis. In private practice the matter requires less