The Bastarding Of "psychoanalysis" In The Concept Of "countertransference"

2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43

"Progress"

In the process of what is commonly called the "development of psychoanalysis", the concept of "countertransference" was firmly entrenched among the most important theoretical provisions, and formed the basis of the modern technique of carrying out the procedure. Together with many other concepts that have become key over time, psychoanalysis owes the emergence of this such a wonderful working tool to the especially devoted successors of its founder's work - people who have devoted their lives not only to a thorough study of Freud's works, but also took upon themselves the burden of further progress along the difficult planned by him. paths. It is believed that thanks to the most talented followers, psychoanalysis has undergone evolution, and in its progressive development has reached the heights inaccessible to the flight of thought of its founder. And this is not surprising, because "students must outgrow their teachers", and now there is nothing to be done about the fact that "old Freud was, of course, a genius, but he still did not understand much," and we, showing the necessary share of respectful indulgence, "have the right to their point of view ", since" psychoanalysis is anything but adherence to archaic dogmas."

Sourc

Nevertheless, the term "countertransference" was coined by Freud himself, and is found in two of his works [1]. The meaning of the brief mention of "countertransference" is reduced to two points: 1) it concerns the analyst's "unconscious feelings"; 2) it is an obstacle to analysis. Thanks to the surviving correspondence of 1909 with Jung [2] and Ferenczi [3], the circumstances in which Freud first used this term are known. It concerns Jung's relationship with Sabine Spielrein, where Freud, from the outside, clearly sees the analyst's impermissible emotional involvement, and around the same time he notices the influence of his own emotional involvement on Ferenczi's analysis.

The essential role of this observation is beyond doubt, since the question of one's own feelings invariably arises in the practice of each analyst as one of the first and most disturbing. But why did Freud pay so little attention to this issue? And in what sense should we understand his recommendation to “overcome” countertransference?

Rebirth and modificatio

For a long time, the concept of "countertransference" did not attract much attention from analysts. Serious interest and active conceptualization are flaring up thanks to the emergence and development of what is commonly called the "psychoanalytic tradition of object relations" (although the very first approach to this theory clearly shows its therapeutic orientation, and it remains only deeply perplexed about the reasons for the stubborn adherence of its adherents to the meaning " psychoanalysis"). It is generally accepted that a new era of "countertransference" [4] began at the beginning of 1950, when P. Heimann and H. Rucker almost simultaneously released works in which countertransference was first proposed, precisely as a working tool, which served as the basis for further active discussion, which continues to this day [5].

Thanks to the efforts of the aforementioned couple, Freud's ideas were "crossed" and "refined", resulting in what is colloquially called "a mixture of a bulldog with a rhinoceros", or simply a bastard [6], or, in more neutral terms, a new compositional the concept that best suits the realities of analytical practice. The reasoning presented below leaves aside the clarification of the contribution of numerous authors to the rebirth and development of this creation, since all theories of "countertransference", with all their diversity, are initially marked by a common defect in the interpretation of Freud's thought. The idea of this text is to compare some of the provisions of the original Freudian theory with a technical approach based on the concept of "countertransference" in its principal features, set in the beginning of 1950, and which has retained its relevance to this day.

In short, and without going into controversy about the details, the modern doctrine of "countertransference" is based on two conceptual points: 1) "wi-fi of the unconscious"; 2) the sensory sphere. That is, it is believed that the feelings of a specialist arising in the process of the procedure can serve as a source of knowledge about the patient, since a connection is established between these two at the level of the unconscious, therefore, on the part of the specialist, it is not correct to suppress feelings, but to control and attentive attitude to this very sensual sphere [7]. The peak of modern conceptualization of this theory is formulated in the sense that, of course, not all feelings that arise in a specialist can be caused by the patient (and in this case are called "countertransference"), but something can belong to the specialist himself (then it is "own the transfer of the analyst to the patient”), and the most important is the skill to distinguish the first from the second [8],“work through”“your feelings”in your analysis, and use“countertransference”to work with the patient [9].

Consider the genealogy of these two points of origin for the concept of "countertransference". In both cases, it was not without Freud. "Wi-fi of the unconscious" seems to be based on the role of the unconscious analyst, noted in the works on the technique of psychoanalysis (1912-1915) and the article "The Unconscious" (1915) [10]. Further development was carried out by T. Raik, and, although he practically did not use the concept of "countertransference", it was his theory of analytical intuition that served to revive this concept - without substantiating the mechanism of transmission between the analyst and the patient, a large-scale revival of the concept of "countertransference" would not have taken place. As for the involvement of the “sensory sphere,” the situation is simple: Freud himself, in talking about countertransference, clearly pointed out the relevance of the emotional reaction.

The merit of P. Heimann and H. Rucker was the synthesis of two ideas, in fact, they proposed a productive use of "unconscious communication", as if the elements circulating between the analyst and the patient at this level were feelings. It is believed that thus in the development of the concept of "countertransference", as it were, repeats the path of Freud's development of the concept of "transfer", when from the factor of resistance, "transfer" was rethought in terms of its useful applicability. But, while for Freud "free floating attention" [11] applies strictly to patient speech, the modern psychoanalyst, armed with a modern concept, is busy with his own associations on the countertransference screen, that is, own feelings [12]but not in the patient's words.

Freu

But since when have feelings become an area of psychoanalytic research? And why suddenly the only and most primitive model of understanding the unconscious as a container, stuffed to the eyeballs, like a bag of potatoes, with emotions and passions, has taken root in the theory? It seems that the magical effect of one well-known metaphor of the seething cauldron [13] was enough to captivate the imagination of readers, and forever distort the understanding of the entire Freudian initiative. Whereas for the logic that is not subject to the mystical curse, a simple thought remains obvious: “the essence of feeling is that it is experienced, that is, it becomes known to consciousness” [14] - that which is correlated with the unconscious is something else.

In the part of the text from which this quote is cited [15], Freud asks the question: "Are there unconscious feelings?" "Affect", but not about "feeling." The distinction between these two terms is essential."Feeling" in Freud's texts is an auxiliary and passing concept, while "affect" is the most complex analytical concept [16], really associated with the "unconscious". But with that “unconscious”, which Freud never ceases to develop in a strictly structural logical dimension, to which some “sensory experience” has a very indirect relationship.

Freud from the very beginning presents the psychic apparatus as a "writing machine", a device for "rewriting" signs on the way from perception to consciousness [17]. The content of the unconscious is definitely expressed in terms of "thoughts" and "representations" in every work of metapsychology. In any other text of Freud, when conceptualizing the "unconscious", one cannot find support on the data of the "sensory sphere" [18]; any episode of practice presented by the founder of psychoanalysis is based on work in the dimension of language. Whereas Freud rarely stutters about feelings [19], for example, when he speaks of "countertransference", and, indeed, this concept has to do with the analyst's emotional reactions, which obviously arise, and no one argues with this, but it should be clarified whether "Countertransference" is any relation to the subject of the unconscious who is doing the analysis.

Lacan'

The concept of "subject" appeared in this text for the reason that a clear understanding of the role of the sensory sphere can be found in the theory of Lacan [20], who moved back to Freud, that is, in the direction opposite to the evolution and development of modern psychoanalysis. The place of the concept of "countertransference" in such psychoanalytic practice, which relies on the discoveries of Freud, can be determined thanks to one single point, which Lacan strenuously emphasized during the first years of his seminars. It is about the distinction between the registers of the Imaginary and the Symbolic. By comprehending this difference, it is possible to clarify what Freud said without speaking about "countertransference."

Lacan constantly reworked the concept of "subject", but always in conjunction with the unconscious as an effect of language. Lacan's subject is initially designated as being in a relationship with the big Other, which is represented either by another subject, or by a place in which speech is formed and formulated in advance [21]. These relations are maintained by the register of the symbolic, where the subject of the unconscious manifests itself at the level of the utterance act - in the formations of the unconscious such as symptoms, dreams, erroneous actions and acuteness, that is, where it is a question of singular manifestations of desire sexually sexualized in its essence. The register of the symbolic rests on the primordial failure of human extra-natural (psycho) sexuality. The register of the symbolic defines the mode of unique, unpredictable intersubjective interaction, and repetition in the sense of producing novelty [22].

The register of the Imaginary, on the other hand, is oriented by the logic of universality, similarity and reproduction of what is already known. Here the function of synthesis, unification around the image of an ideal form, which plays an essential role in the formation of one's own self, is performed. competitor. This is how the ambivalence of such an inter-object interaction with a small other arises, as with the likeness of one's own I. In these conditions, all known raging passions and feelings appear. And also, it is in this register that the mechanisms of imaginary meanings of mirroring and mutual perception are located, as well as models, analogies and algorithms, that is, everything that is defined and done typically, according to a model.

Obviously, the "countertransference" in the coordinates of Lacan's theory is entirely due to the register of the Imaginary [23], while the "transfer" [24] is wholly and completely [25] by the register of the Symbolic [26]. It is not difficult to trace how accurately Lacan adheres to Freud's thought when he notes that 1) transference is not a situation of reproduction in the logic of similarity, but is a repetition in novelty [27]; 2) the transference is not associated with the patient's behavior and feelings, but only with speech, or rather, with what is on the other side of his speech, with what Lacan calls "full speech" [28].

In general, what Freud called "countertransference", Lacan already in the first seminar called "refractions of the transference in the field of the Imaginary" [29], and thus clearly defined the place of this concept in the theory and practice of psychoanalysis. A specialist working with a patient at the level of inter-object interaction deals with an object-similarity of his own self, and in this dimension, one can really assume the established Wi-Fi connection and the importance of complicity in the sensory sphere and behavioral reactions. This position fundamentally affects the nature of practice [30], which inevitably and reliably relies on the procedure of suggestion with all the ensuing imaginary therapeutic effects. Only here Freud's psychoanalysis from the very beginning insists on adhering to a different position, incompatible with hypnosis and the participation of the analyst's personality [31]. The ethics of psychoanalysis supports the uniqueness of the subject, the culture of non-knowledge of repressive models, schemes and meanings, signs of the ideal and the norm [32] [33].

In practic

However, the question of how the analyst deals with his own feelings remains on the agenda. Freud says: "The countertransference must be overcome." The well-developed large-scale concept of “countertransference”, which is relevant today, understands overcoming in the sense of developing the competence of a specialist so that he becomes a more sensitive operator of his sensory sphere, knows how to “work through”, distinguish and control his emotions, and grows his “analytical ego”, and with the help of his associations brought the patient out of the darkness of the unconscious to the light of consciousness [34].

Lacan, in understanding the prescribed “overcoming”, follows his maxim, that is, desire, his thought is this: the analyst is formed as such when the desire to analyze becomes more of a desire to show personal and sensory reactions [35]. As long as the specialist is of greater interest, a question or a problem in the sphere of the imaginary, as long as he remains captured by his own “narcissistic mirages” [36], there is no need to talk about the beginning of psychoanalysis within the framework of one session, or one life, or one era.

Notes (edit)

[1] It is presented to a wide audience in the opening speech at the Second International Congress of Psychoanalytic in Nuremberg and in the article "Perspectives of Psychoanalytic Therapy" (1910), which deals with the "technical innovation": as a result of the patient's influence on his unconscious feelings, and are not far from making a demand according to which the doctor must recognize in himself and overcome this countertransference. Since the time when more people began to conduct psychoanalysis and share their experiences with each other, we noticed that each psychoanalyst advances only as much as his own complexes and internal resistances allow him, and therefore we demand that he begin his activities with introspection and he continuously deepened it as he accumulated his experience of working with patients. Anyone who does not succeed in such introspection can immediately challenge his ability to treat patients analytically."

In addition, the concept of "countertransference" can be found in the work "Remarks on Love in the Transference" (1915), where it is characterized as "erotic".

[2] In 1909, in correspondence with K.-G. Jung Freud writes to his then beloved student: “Such experiences, though painful, cannot be avoided. Without them, we will not know real life and what we have to deal with. I myself have never been caught like that, but I have come close to it many times and got out with difficulty. I think I was saved only by the merciless necessity that drove my work, and even the fact that I was 10 years older than you when I came to psychoanalysis. They [these experiences] only help us develop the thick skin we need and manage the "countertransference" that is ultimately a constant problem for all of us. They teach us to direct our own passions towards the best goal”(letter dated June 7, 1909, cited in (Britton, 2003)

[3] Letter to Ferenczi dated 6 October 1909 (to Jones, 1955-57, Vol.2)

[4] I. Romanov, the author of a thorough study and collection of the most important works on the topic of countertransference, calls his book "The Era of Countertransference: An Anthology of Psychoanalytic Research" (2005).

[5] Text by Horacio Etchegoyen Countertransference (1965)

[6] Bastard (outdated, from the verb “to bastard, to fornicate”) - a geek, unclean; in humans, the illegitimate descendant of a “purebred, noble” parent. The outdated term "bastard" in biology is now completely supplanted by the word "gobrid", that is, a cross between two species of animals; from a stallion and a donkey: a hinnie; from a donkey and a mare, a mule; from a wolf with a dog: wolf, wolfdog, spinning top; from a fox and a dog: fox dog, podlice; from different breeds of dogs: blockhead, from hare and hare, cuff; half-helper, half-grouse, from a scribe and a pole; half-canary, from canary and siskin, etc.

[7] “My thesis is that the analyst's emotional response to the patient in the analytic situation is one of the most important tools of his work. The analyst's countertransference is a tool for exploring the patient's unconscious. " Paula Heimann. Countertransference (1950)

[8] "Marshall (1983) proposed categorizing countertransference reactions based on whether they are conscious or unconscious, whether they are a consequence of the patient's character and psychopathology, or stem from unresolved conflicts and the therapist's personal experience."

"Hoffer (1956) was one of the first to try to sort out some of the confusion surrounding the term itself by distinguishing between the analyst's transference to the patient and countertransference." “Countertransference in psychoanalytic psychotherapy of children and adolescents”, (Ed.) J. Cyantis, A.-M. Sandler, D. Anastasopoulos, B. Martindale (1992)

[9] With regard to such a prescription, it can be assumed that the author was able to masterfully dodge the “third blow inflicted by psychoanalysis on the narcissism of mankind” (see Z. Freud “Lectures on the Introduction to Psychoanalysis”, lecture 18), since he does not cause any the slightest surprise is the fact that any "specialist" in the field of the unconscious is able to objectively assess and distinguish the processes of his psyche, as well as receive accurate data on those in the patient on the monitor of his sensory sphere.

[10] “the doctor must be able to use everything that has been told to him for the purpose of interpretation, recognition of the hidden unconscious, without replacing the choice that the patient has refused with his own censorship, or, to put it in a formula: he must direct his own unconscious as of the perceiving organ to the patient's unconscious, to be tuned to the analysand in the same way as the receiving device of a telephone is attached to a disk. Just as the receiving device again converts electrical current oscillations excited by sound waves into sound waves, so the doctor's unconscious is able to restore this unconscious, which determined the patient's thoughts, from the derivatives of the unconscious communicated to him. Z. Freud Advice to a Doctor in Psychoanalytic Treatment (1912)

[11] Rereading the beginning of the article "Advice to the Doctor in Psychoanalytic Treatment" (1912), where Freud introduces the concept of "free floating attention", one can easily be convinced that it is about what is possible to hear and about nothing else.

[12] This is indeed a common denominator of all theories of "countertransference", for example Winnicott's (1947) classification of countertransference phenomena: (1) abnormal countertransference feelings indicating that the analyst needs a deeper personal analysis; (2) countertransference feelings associated with personal experience and development, on which every analyst depends; (3) the analyst's truly objective countertransference, that is, the love and hate experienced by the analyst in response to the patient's actual behavior and personality, based on objective observation.

[13] Speech about the description that can be found in the text "I and It" (1923), where Freud writes about the "seething cauldron of instincts." Actually, this metaphor refers to the instance of It in its conjunction with drives, but the imaginary idea of the unconscious as a cauldron of passions has firmly entered the low-quality professional jargon.

[14] Z. Freud. The Unconscious (1915)

[15] Ibid, 3rd section "Unconscious feelings"

[16] Some of Freud's statements give rise to this confusion, that is, sometimes he can read the equality of affect to feeling, but the concept of affect was subjected to a much more capacious development. Starting with the first theory of trauma within the framework of the cathartic method in Investigations of Hysteria (1895) to the later works of Denial (1924) and Inhibition, the symptom of anxiety (1926), where the development of this concept is carried out at the highest theoretical level. As a result, in Freud's texts, affect is presented as a stigma of the primary recording, that is, as a certain structurally given effect, but is not explained in any way by referring to the sensory sphere.

To clarify many of the key points in the theory of affect, you can refer to the article by Ayten Juran "The Lost Affect of Psychoanalysis" (2005)

[17] The idea of "rewriting" is outlined in Letter 52 to Fliess. In short, this model of the mental apparatus refutes the possibility of direct "sensory" perception, any material of perception initially enters the psyche in the form of a sign and undergoes at least 3 rewrites before reaching the level of consciousness. Feelings arise not from direct perception, but are the product of the combination of affect with representation in the preconscious, but are formulated directly as experienced "feelings" at the level of consciousness. Further, feelings can be suppressed, that is, transferred from consciousness to the preconscious (to overcome the "second censorship"), but to displace, transfer to the system of the unconscious (to overcome the "first censorship"), only a representation detached from affect is possible. (see Z. Freud "The Interpretation of Dreams" Chapter VII (1900), "Repression" (1915))

[18] There is an easy way to verify this by reading the corresponding entry in the dictionary on psychoanalysis by Laplanche and Pontalis "The Unconscious"

[19] Here, on the part of the followers who have advanced in psychoanalysis beyond Freud, an argument from the category, charming in its deep naivety, sounds like: “this prim authoritarian bourgeois of the beginning of the last century had an underdeveloped sensory sphere, and that is why we, people who are more sensitive, have to to refine the theory”. In response, I just want to send such "psychoanalysts" to the cozy harbor of the Jungian approach, where they belong with such arguments.

[20] the term “subject” appears in Lacan's Roman speech “Function of the field of speech and language in psychoanalysis” (1953), and in the early 70s the transformation of this concept reaches the designation “parlêtre” (existing in language) - by A. Chernoglazov, is the translation of "parlêtre" into Russian as "Slovenian".

In order to clarify the above, it is enough to consider the first stage of the theory of the subject, designated by the matema S before the idea of its crossing out by the signifier appeared in the 13th chapter of the 5th seminar "Formation of the unconscious" (1957-58). Using the concept of "the subject of the unconscious"

Lacan initially emphasizes the dimension of language that is relevant to Freud's psychoanalysis, in contrast to the subsequent initiatives of the analysis of the ego or self.

“Freud opens up a new perspective before us - a perspective that revolutionizes the study of subjectivity. It just becomes obvious in it that the subject does not coincide with the individual”J. Lacan, 1 ch. 2nd seminar "I" in the theory of Freud and in the technique of psychoanalysis "(1954-55)

“I want to show you that Freud first discovered in man the axis and burden of that subjectivity that transcends the boundaries of individual organization as a result of individual experience and even as a line of individual development. I give you a possible formula for subjectivity, defining it as an organized system of symbols that claims to encompass the totality of experience, animate it, give it meaning. What, if not subjectivity, are we trying to understand here? Ibid, 4 chap.

“The subject posits himself as acting, as human, as I, only from the moment the symbolic system appears. And this moment is fundamentally impossible to deduce from any model of individual structural self-organization. In other words, for the birth of a human subject, it is necessary that the machine issued in information messages, it takes into account, as a unit among others, and itself. Ibid., 4 chap.

[21] The essence of intersubjective relations with the big Other is presented in the scheme L in the 2nd seminar (chapter 19), however, the big Other as another subject is of secondary importance in relation to its meaning of the symbolic order, in general, as a "place of speech" (see Seminar 3 "Psychoses" (1955-56) This quote from Seminar 2 will help clarify the analyst's position in intersubjective relationships:

“Throughout the entire analysis, under the indispensable condition that the analyst's own I deign to be absent, and the analyst himself does not appear as a living mirror, but an empty mirror, everything that happens occurs between the subject's own I (after all, this is it, the subject's own I, at first glance, he speaks all the time) and others. The successful advancement of analysis consists in the gradual displacement of these relations, which the subject can at any time be aware of, on the other side of the wall of language, as a transference in which he participates, without recognizing himself in it. These relations should not be limited at all, as it is sometimes written; it is only important that the subject recognizes them as his own in his own place. The analysis consists in allowing the subject to realize his relationship not with the analyst's own I, but with those Others who are his true, but not recognized interlocutors. The subject is called upon to gradually discover for himself which Other he is, without suspecting, actually turning to, and step by step to recognize the existence of a transference relationship where he really is and where he did not know himself before”.

[22] This refers to the psychoanalytic concept of "repetition", which was set forth by Freud in the work "Repetition, recollection, elaboration" (1909). In the 2nd and 11th Seminars, Lacan refers to Kierkegaard's work "Repetition", which sets out the distinction between the ancient idea of remembering as a reproduction of the known, and repetition, which is possible only in the very gesture of producing novelty. This idea helps Lacan get closer to understanding the principle of repetition.

[23] “countertransference is nothing more than a function of the analyst's ego, as the sum of his prejudices” J. Lacan, 1st Seminar, “Freud's Works on the Technique of Psychoanalysis” (1953-54), 1 ch.

[24] In the 1st seminar, Lacan immediately clarifies the meaning of the concept of transference, here are 2 quotes:

“So, this is the plane in which the transference relation is played out - it is played out around the symbolic relationship, whether it is about its establishment, its continuation, or its maintenance. The transfer can be accompanied by overlays, projections of imaginary joints, but it itself is entirely related to the symbolic relationship. What follows from this? Manifestations of speech affect several planes. By definition, speech always has a number of ambiguous backgrounds that go into something inexpressible, where speech can no longer make itself felt, justify itself as speech. However, this otherworldlyness has nothing to do with what psychology looks for in the subject and finds in his facial expressions, shudders, excitement and all other emotional correlates of speech. In fact, this supposedly “otherworldly” psychological area lies entirely “on this side”. The otherworldly, about which we are talking, refers to the very dimension of speech. By the being of the subject, we mean not his psychological properties, but that which is introduced into the experience of speech. This is the analytical situation. Ibid., 18 chap.

“Analyzing the transference, we must understand at what point in her presence speech is complete. (…) At what point does the word "Obertragung", transference, appear in Freud's work? It does not appear in Works on the Technique of Psychoanalysis, and not in connection with real or imagined and even symbolic relationships to the subject. It is also not connected with Dora's case and his failures in this analysis - after all, by his own admission, he did not manage to tell her in time that she began to feel tender feelings for him. And this happens in the seventh chapter of the "Traumdeutung" entitled "Psychology of dream activity". (…) What does Freud call "‘ Obertragung "‘? This is a phenomenon, he says, due to the fact that there is no possible direct mode of transmission for some repressed desire of the subject. This desire is forbidden in the subject's discourse and cannot achieve recognition. Why? Because among the elements of repression there is something that participates in the inexpressible. There are relationships that no discourse can express, except between the lines. " Ibid, 19 chap.

[25] "The transfer may be accompanied by overlaps, projections of imaginary joints, but it itself is entirely related to the symbolic relationship." Ibid., 8 chap.

[26] In the 11th seminar, the 4 basic concepts of psychoanalysis (unconsciousness, repetition, transference and attraction) are conceptualized in conjunction of the Symbolic and the Real. J. Lacan "Four basic concepts of psychoanalysis" (1964)

[27] Here are Freud's words from Lecture 27 of Introduction to Psychoanalysis about transference: "It would be correct to say that you are not dealing with the patient's previous illness, but with a newly created and remade neurosis that has replaced the first."

[28] See "The Function of the Speech and Language Field in Psychoanalysis" (1953)

[29] 1st Seminar "Freud's Works on the Technique of Psychoanalysis" (1953-54), ch.20

[30] Lacan's first five seminars are replete with examples of clinical cases in which the analyst makes a mistake because he does not recognize the activation of the logic of similarity, and interprets based on his own personal reactions. In particular, in this vein, the cases of Dora and a young homosexual patient are presented, where Freud makes the same mistake.

[31] Freud's words about modern approaches to “psychoanalytic therapy”: “However, in practice, nothing can be objected to if a psychotherapist combines part of the analysis with a certain portion of suggestive influence in order to achieve visible results in a shorter time, like this, for example, is sometimes necessary in hospitals, but one can demand that he himself have no doubts about what he is doing, and that he knows that his method is not the method of real psychoanalysis. " Z. Freud "Advice to a doctor in psychoanalytic treatment" (1912)

[32] “The best cases are those in which they behave, so to speak, unintentionally, allow themselves to be surprised at any change and constantly treat them impartially and without prejudice. The correct behavior for the analyst will be to move from one mental attitude to another as needed, not to reason and not speculatively while he is analyzing, and to subject the obtained material to mental synthetic work only after the analysis is completed. " Z. Freud "Advice to a doctor in psychoanalytic treatment" (1912)

[33] “by its very purpose, psychoanalysis is a practice that depends on what is most particular and specific in the subject, and when Freud insists on this, even going so far as to assert that in the analysis of each specific case, the entire analytical science should be placed under doubt (…) And the analyst really will not take this path until he is able to discern in his knowledge a symptom of his ignorance.. "J. Lacan" Variants of Exemplary Thinking"

[34] “we believe that the professional setting of the psychotherapist is to establish a certain 'distance' between the doctor and the patient. At the same time, the psychoanalyst constantly monitors both his own feelings and the emotions of the patient, which turns out to be extremely useful in carrying out psychoanalytic work. Arlow (1985) speaks of the "analytic posture." Associated with this is the psychoanalyst's notion of the "working ego" (Fliess, 1942; McLaughlin, 1981; Olinick, Poland, Grigg & Granatir, 1973). " J. Sandler, C. Dare, A. Holder, The Patient and the Psychoanalyst: The Basics of the Psychoanalytic Process (1992)

[35] This formula can be found in Lacan's 8th Seminar "Transference" (1960-61)

[36] "… the ideal condition for analysis we must recognize the transparency of the mirages of narcissism for the analyst, which is necessary for him to acquire sensitivity to the genuine speech of another" J. Lacan "Variants of Exemplary Thinking" (1955)

the article was published on the website znakperemen.ru in January 2019