The author describes the trajectory he followed while reading Hélène Suarez Labat's report. Starting out from a thought process that seemed totally foreign to him, namely, conceiving primary identification in terms of a model based on autism, he was led to elucidate certain questions that, for him, had remained unanswered in his clinical practice. In particular, he looks at the role of the gaze in thinking about the failures of moving from the armchair to the couch, while questioning Hélène Suarez Labat about the limited space she gives to language. Referring to the clinical case of Charles and Rosalie, which focuses on the question of the gaze and the motor act, the author raises questions about the relationship between object, transference and identification. Interpretation introduces an opening that makes it possible to move beyond an overly formal distinction between hysterical identification and narcissistic identification.