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.
I choose the phrasing, negative transference, although it is not considered entirely descriptive by many writers. John Rosen 1 has said that the literature does not clearly define transference, and that there is no negative or positive transference, just transference. To Rosen, a patient expressing negative feelings is still expressing a need: “I see this patient as an angry baby, who, because he is not getting his way, or for other reasons, refuses to comply with his mother's wishes.” I hope, within this paper, to clarify the meaning of these negative, hostile remarks expressed by patients during the heat of treatment of the psychosis.
As I have mentioned in one of my earlier papers, the psychotic is not a baby. 6 Remnants of regression to the oral period (neo-natal life) remain in all cases of psychosis. However, here is where the similarity stops and the differences become all important. The psychotic patient has experienced feelings of the oedipal struggle and has withdrawn away from it. In all the cases that I have treated, it has been the failure to find a solution to the oedipal situation and failure to find a self solid identity, that have caused a regression to psychosis. The treatment will be unsuccessful unless the patient emerges with a good solid understanding of what he is and who he is. To reach this feeling of self, there must exist a negative transference. Negative transference is the knife that severs the umbilical cord. Without it emerging in open battle between patient and therapist, there is always the danger of re-regression.
The negative remarks must constitute an explosive emotion directed at the therapist himself. If the patient's remarks are vague and disconnected, as in deep hallucinatory psychosis, there is little transference value. For instance, a paranoid patient may say “men