3.4 Transference: Theoretical Considerations

Before we explore some of the theoretical issues concerning transference phenomena, it is imperative to be more precise about the meaning of the term. There are many different theories about what constitutes a transference reaction and I have the impression that some of the divergencies stem from a failure to define one's terms in sufficient detail. Let me repeat at this point the definition of transference I employed in Section 3.1. Transference is the experiencing of feeling, drives, attitudes, fantasies, and defenses toward a person in the present which do not befit that person but are a repetition of reactions originating in regard to significant persons of early childhood, unconsciously displaced onto figures in the present.

This definition rests on four basic propositions: (1) Transference is a variety of object relationship. (2) Transference phenomena repeat a past relationship to an object. (3) The mechanism of displacement is the essential process in transference reactions. (4) Transference is a regressive phenomenon. For a psychic phenomenon to be considered transference, all four of these elements must be present. Each of the four components has important theoretical and clinical connotations.

Psychoanalytic treatment does not create transference reactions; it merely brings them to light by facilitating their development. Transference phenomena in neurotics are a specialized class of relationship to another person. They represent a kind of intermediary realm between illness and real life (Freud, 1914c). Other modes of relating to the analyst occur during psychoanalytic treatment. A working alliance and a real relationship also take place and play an important role in the psychoanalytic therapy of neurotic patients. They differ from transference phenomena and will be considered separately.

More primitive ways of relating to the analyst may occur as well. Reactions of a delusional or psychotic character take