Heimann(1959/60) Counter-transference 反移情
作者: Heimann / 3856次阅读 时间: 2016年5月20日
来源: 陈明 译 标签: Heimann 反移情 海曼 移情
Counter-transference (1959/60)反移情

This paper was presented in a symposium on ‘Countertransference’ held by the Medical Section of the British Psychological Society, London, 1959. The contributions from Freudian and Jungian analysts were published in the British journal of Medical Psychology 33 (9) (1960).
本文在伦敦1959年英国心理学会医学部举办的“反移情”研讨会中公布。来自弗洛伊德学派和荣格学派的分析师为这篇文章做出了贡献,本文发表在英国医学心理学期刊33 (9) (1960).

I gladly accepted the invitation to partake in this symposium, and I think that the memory of the earlier occasion on which Dr Fordham and I exchanged views had its positive share in this readiness.


In addition, I welcomed the opportunity for thinking again about a problem that so fundamentally enters into our daily work and for revising my earlier paper on countertransference to which Dr Fordham has referred, comparing my views expressed then (Heimann 1950) with my present views and those of other workers. I like to think that my paper did stimulate discussion. A number of papers have appeared afterwards making important contributions.

另外,我欢迎再次思考日常生活中的根本问题,并修改Fordham博士提到的我之前的关于反移情的文章,比较我当时的观点(Heimann 1950)和我现在以及其他人的观点。我想,我的文章促进了讨论。随后出现的一些论文做出了重要的贡献。

My short paper was prompted by a number of observations which led me to pay much attention to counter-transference problems.


In supervision I could see how many candidates, misunderstanding Freud’s recommendations (Freud 1910–19) and particularly his comparing the analyst’s attitude with that of the surgeon, endeavoured to become inhuman. They were so frightened and guilty when emotions towards their patients came up, that they warded them off by repression and various denial techniques, to the detriment of their work. But it was not only that they lost sensitivity in the perception of events in the analytic situation, because they were so preoccupied and in a fight with themselves; they also used defences against the patient, by taking flight into theory or the patient’s remote past, and presenting clever intellectual interpretations. Further, they tended to overlook or omit comments on the positive transference with its attendant sexual fantasies, and to select arbitrarily elements of the negative transference, because they then felt safer in reaching the goal of ‘cool detachedness’. That much of the hostility on which they focused was the patient’s reaction to being rejected and misunderstood, escaped them.

督导中我看到很多新人误解了弗洛伊德的劝告(Freud 1910–19),尤其是他用外科手术来比较分析师的态度,竭力变得不人道。当针对病人的感受出现的时候,他们是如此的恐惧和内疚,他们用压抑和各种否认技术避开这些,伤害则他们的工作。但这不仅仅是他们在治疗情景中失去了对事件觉知的敏感性,因为他们太专注,并周旋其中;而且他们还防御病人,通过谈话遁入理论或病人遥远的过去,同时作出巧妙聪明的诠释。进而,他们往往忽略或遗漏了对随之而来的性幻想的正向移情作出评论,以及选择负移情的武断要素,因为他们在达到“冷酷的超然分离”目标的过程中会感觉安全。这更多的是他们的敌对,将注意力集中于病人对的被拒绝、被误解,逃脱他们的反应的敌对。

Often when a candidate’s interpretations appeared to be quite outside any rapport with his patient, I asked him what he had really felt. It frequently emerged that in his feelings he had appropriately registered the essential point. We could then see that, had hesustainedhis feelings and treated them as the response to a process in his patient, he would have had a good chance of discovering what it was to which he had responded. Naturally, on such occasions the candidate also became aware of his unsolved personal problems which produced his transference to his patient, which he could then take back into his own analysis—one useful aspect of the supervision experience.


However, it would be a mistake to regard counter-transference problems merely as the growing pains of the beginner. I have encountered them in my own work, and even very experienced analysts senior to myself have mentioned such difficulties.


I should like to recapitulate, briefly, the essential points I put forward in my earlier paper.


The analytic situation is a relationship between two persons. What distinguishes this relationship from others is not the presence of feelings in one partner, the patient, and their absence in the other, the analyst, but the degree of feeling the analyst experiences and the use he makes of his feelings, these factors being interdependent. The aim of the analyst’s own analysis is not to turn him into a mechanical brain which can produce interpretations on the basis of a purely intellectual procedure, but to enable him to sustain his feelings as opposed to discharging them like the patient.


Along with his freely and evenly hovering attention which enables the analyst to listen simultaneously on many levels, he needs a freely roused emotional sensibility so as to perceive and follow closely his patient’s emotional movements and unconscious phantasies. By comparing the feelings roused in himself with the content of his patient’s associations and the qualities of his mood and behaviour, the analyst has the means for checking whether he has understood or failed to understand his patient. Since, however, violent emotions of any kind blur the capacity to think clearly and impel towards action, it follows that if the analyst’s emotional response is too intense, it will defeat its objective.


For most aspects of his work the experienced analyst has an emotional sensitivity which is extensive rather than intensive, differentiating and mobile, and his feelings are not experienced as a problem. His tools are in good working order. But situations occur in which he notices that he is puzzled in a disturbing way with somewhat intense feelings of anxiety or worry which appear inappropriate to his assessment of the events in the analytic situation. As he waits—which he must do in order not to interfere with an ongoing process in his patient, and in order not to obscure the already puzzling situation still more by irrelevant and distracting interpretations—the moment occurs when he understands what has been happening. The moment he understands his patient, he can understand his own feelings, the emotional disturbance disappears and he can verbalize the patient’s crucial process meaningfully for the patient.


I gave an instance of this kind which could be readily described. I could have given others, which would, however, have neeeded a far more lengthy report. I have noticed that Dr Fordham is also familiar with the problem of choosing clinical examples.


My earlier conclusion was that the counter-transference represents an instrument of research into the patient’s unconscious processes, and that the disturbance in my own feelings was due to a time lag between unconscious and conscious understanding. I did not then attempt to investigate the reasons for this time lag, nor did I attempt to tease out the contributions from the transference to the disturbed feelings, as my main objectives were to lay the ghost of the ‘unfeeling’, inhuman, analyst, and to show the operational signifiance of the counter-transference.


In passing, I may mention that I have had occasion to see that my paper also caused some misunderstanding in that some candidates, who referring to my paper for justification, uncritically, based their interpretations on their feelings. They said in reply to any query ‘my counter-transference’, and seemed disinclined to check their interpretations against the actual data in the analytic situation.


In view of the interdependence of the concepts of transference and counter-transference, I would like to take you back for a moment to the pre-analytic era, to the period before Freud discovered the transference. The therapist was in the role of a friendly helper, who encouraged the patient to remember everything that related to her suffering, her hysterical symptoms, and who by hypnosis made such recollecting easier. The violent emotions accompanying the patient’s remembering were directed against her past objects, and after discharging them the patient felt considerably better. This relief, manifest and often highly dramatic, was obviously due to the doctor’s procedure, and proved his usefulness. Patient and doctor were united in their purpose, on the same side, so to speak, against the patient’s past objects, who came up in her memories and to whom she directed the full strength of her affect and impulses.


Freud’s revolutionary discovery of the transference fundamentally changed the treatment situation. This is the point I wish to emphasize: with the recognition of the transference the demands which his work puts on the analyst have been immeasurably increased.


Hence, as Dr Fordham reminded us, the institution of the training analysis, for which Freud gave explicit recognition to the ‘Swiss school of analysts’. In passing, I wish to point out Jung’s mistake in thinking that Freud did not acknowledge the universality of the transference. What he did stress was the fact that in other forms of therapy the transference was not recognized.


As long as the therapist was merely administering a particular therapeutic agency to his patient—namely, the encouragement to let memories come to the fore and to discharge pent-up affects directed towards her past objects—his ordinary psychiatric training sufficed. But when the patient-doctor relationship became the stage on which the patient acted his violent impulses, unconsciously convinced of their originating actually and really from the activities and behaviour of the analyst, the therapist himself became the therapeutic agency and needed a special training to protect himself and his patient against emotional involvement and reaction to his patient’s acting.


The concept of the counter-transference was presented by Freud very briefly. He described it as a ‘result of the patient’s influence on the analyst’s unconscious feelings’ and demanded that it should be recognized and overcome. Many analysts regard counter-transference as nothing else than transference on the part of the analyst, and I believe that they feel supported by the fact that Freud referred to it without any definition and coupled with it a warning that was already familiar in respect of transference.


I hold, as I have mentioned, that as the prefix ‘counter’ would imply, there is a factor additional to transference which is of specific operational significance.


In the literature, more recently, some attempts have been made to define countertransference. Time does not allow a thorough review, but I would like to mention in some detail Gitelson’s paper (1952). He distinguishes between reactions to the patient as a whole and reactions to partial aspects of the patient. The first occur right at the beginning of the analyst’s contact with a patient and persist during the initial stages of the analysis. Gitelson speaks of the ‘trial analysis’. These reactions, he says, ‘derive their interfering quality from the fact that they emanate from a surviving neurotic ‘transference potential’” (in the analyst). If this is so strong that the analyst cannot resolve it, and if in the trial analysis the patient shows no progressive movements,【1】 the analyst must conclude that he is unsuitable for this particular patient and refer him to another analyst.


The second type, the reactions to partial aspects of the patient, appear later within an established analytic situation. They constitute actual counter-transferences. ‘They comprise the analyst’s reaction to: (1) the patient’s transference, (2) the material the patient brings in, and (3) the reactions of the patient to the analyst as a person.’

第二种类型,对病人部分面向的反应,随后出现在建立的分析性情景之中。他们构成了现实的反移情。“他们包括分析师对以下情景的反应:(1)病人的移情;(2)病人带来的材料 ,以及(3)病人对作为一个人的分析师的反应。”

The fact that an analyst is potentially capable of producing the reactions mentioned indicates that he himself is not ‘finally and perfectly analysed’. As Freud has shown, analysis is interminable. But the result of the analyst’s analysis is that he is capable of continuing his analysis. Gitelson uses the expression ‘a spontaneous state of continuing self-analysis’. Every analytic situation presents to the analyst the task ‘to integrate himself rationally in the face of difficulties’. The counter-transference, as defined by Gitelson, represents the activation of unanalysed and unintegrated aspects of the analyst. Since this, however, occurs only episodically, in a recognized specific connection with the patient’s material, and since, moreover, some of the manifestations are grossly symptomatic, there is little danger of the analyst’s overlooking them and failing to analyse his attitudes in himself. Through the analysis of his counter-transference, then, the analyst ‘can re-integrate his position as an analyst and…utilize the interfering factor…for the purpose of analysing the patient’s exploitations of it’.

事实上,一个分析师很可能作出暗示的反应,他自己不是“决定性地和完美地分析”。正如弗洛伊德所表明的,分析是冗长的。但是分析师分析的结果是他有能力继续他的分析。 Gitelson所用表述方式是“持续自我分析的自发状态”。每次分析性情景呈现给分析师的任务是“在面对困难的时候整合他自己的理性”。反移情,如Gitelson所定义的,代表了分析师未活化的和未整合的部分。然而正因为这一点只是偶然的发生在与病人的材料相联系的被认可的特性之中,而且因此,更多的,一些临床表现是严重的症状,分析师忽略了这些,以及未能在此之前对他自己的态度进行分析,这些都是有一些危险的。通过分析他的反移情,那么分析师“可以重新整合他作为分析者的位置…利用干预因素…为了分析病人利用它的目的”。

I have given these points from Gitelson’s paper because of the many valuable clarifications which it presents, and because there is a good deal of common ground between his views and mine. There are also some important differences.


For those analysts like myself who do not adopt the procedure of starting off with a trial analysis, the first diagnostic interview has to decide not only the patient’s psychiatric diagnosis, but also to answer the two questions: (1) can the patient be helped by analysis?; (2) can he be helped by my analysing him? It may happen that the first question can be answered with a Yes, and the second with a No. In such cases the patient must be referred to another analyst.


Gitelson’s concept of the ‘surviving neurotic “transference potential”’ in the analyst offers a valid distinction between transference and counter-transference. But, since in the counter-transference, on Gitelson’s showing too, neurotic elements in the analyst are active, I wonder whether the essential factor which makes the difference is a qualitative one. In my view what is crucial is the quantitative aspect. If there is a greater inclination and ability in the analyst to do the necessary self-analysis in the one case rather than in the other, it is because in that particular case his underlying anxieties and the defences engendered against them are less strong. This brings me back to points I made in my earlier paper, where, instead of defining transference and counter-transference in the analyst’s feelings, I focused on their potential usefulness, the criterion lying in their intensity. In other words, from the patient’s point of view it is not of decisive significance from which source the analyst’s feelings arise provided that the analyst does not use defences which would impair his perception. Sustaining his feelings forms part of the process of reintegration (Gitelson 1952) and of understanding his patient (Heimann 1950).

Gitelson关于分析中的“幸存神经质的‘移情潜势’”的概念,为移情和反移情提供了有效区分。但是,由于在反移情中,也基于Gitelson的描绘,神经质的元素在分析中是活跃的,我不知道是否有哪个重要的因素让这些差异是一个定性的因素。在我看来,关键是量化的方面,如果,分析师有更大的倾向和能力在一个个案而不是另一个个案中做一些必要的自我分析,这是因为在特定的情况下,他潜在焦虑和对他们产生的防御不是那么的强。这让我回到了我在以前的文章中提到的,在那里,不是明确分析师的移情和反移情感受,我专注于他们潜在的用途,位于他们的强度的准则。也就是说,从病人的角度来看,在分析师不使用会损害他知觉的防御机制的条件下,分析师感受的唤起源自于哪里,是不具有决定意义的。维持他的感受构成了整合过程(Gitelson 1952)以及理解他的病人(Heimann 1950)的一部分。

Although a conceptual distinction between transference and counter-transference is possible, in the actual experience the two components are fused. It is true that the transference potential shows up very strikingly at the first meetings with a patient or during the trial analysis, as instanced by Gitelson. But I think it is also at work in the later episodes in an established analysis. In my experience, when I have afterwards (with proverbially easy hindsight) scrutinized incidents of counter-transference, successfully used as indication of processes in the patient, I concluded that the time lag between my unconscious and my conscious understanding was due in part to transference factors which I had not recognized at the time.


Several authors have raised the question of whether or not to tell the patient when counter-transference has affected the analyst’s attitude.


I have expressed the view that a communication of this kind represents a confession of personal matters pertaining to the analyst, and would mean a burden to the patient and lead away from the analysis. Therefore it should not occur.


Gitelson (1952) and Margaret Little (1951) both hold that such communication must be made. Rejecting the notion of confession, Gitelson says: ‘In such a situation one can reveal as much of oneself as is needed to foster and support the patient’s discovery of the reality of the actual inter-personal situation as contrasted with the transference-counter-transference situation.’ Dr Little compares such matters with errors by the analyst about times or accounts. She recommends that the ‘origin in unconscious counter-transference’ should be explicitly mentioned. Further, she deliberates on the possibility that the analysis of the counter-transference might carry the analysis to greater depths, in the same way as the analysis of the transference did. Both authors recommend great caution and are aware of possible abuses and warn against ‘acting out in the counter-transference’.

Gitelson (1952) 和Margaret Little  (1951) 都坚持认为这样的沟通必须要做。拒绝了忏悔的理念,Gitelson 说:“在此情景下,人们可以尽可能的泄露自己,需要抚育并且支持病人对人际情景真实的现实的发现,作为与移情-反移情情景的对比。” Little博士通过分析时间和描述比较了这种事情的差错。她建议,“起源于无意识的反移情”应该被明确的提出。此外,她仔细考虑了 反移情的分析可能 会将分析带入到更深的地方,作为移情的分析以相同的方式也如此。两位作者的建议都非常谨慎,并且意识到滥用的可能,并警告“在反移情中的付诸行动。”

That errors the analyst has made need to be stated is hardly a problem. Nor is there a difficulty, except if the analyst’s subjective need to be honest plays, unconsciously, an undue part in it. The error may concern the account, or times or an interpretation.


How this is done, however, is determined by a deeper and fundamental problem: the role attributed to the analyst as a real person.


Here I wish also to take up Dr Fordham’s remarks concerning the analyst’s personality and its contribution to the therapeutic process.


He has spoken of the ‘“stage of transformation” during which the whole personality of patient and analyst become engaged’. In his analysis of an instance of ‘syntonic countertransference’ he defines the appropriate interpretation or part of it like this: ‘Now I see why I don’t answer your questions, it is like it was with your father. You made me like your father by the very persistence of your questions to which you did not expect an answer.’ In view of Dr Fordham’s earlier theoretical remarks, I take it that the bit ‘why I don’t answer your questions’ is not accidental, but intentionally meaningful. I should also say that I am probably not able to appreciate the full implications, as I am not familiar with Jung’s work.


Now the type of interpretation I would give would focus on the patient’s putting the question. Why does she ask, and not why do I not answer. Similarly, as regards a mistake I have made, I would state clearly that I had made a mistake and that, as I now realize, the point is different, and I would then present the correct interpretation. If it is an error of time causing inconvenience, I would say, ‘I am sorry’, and offer the practical remedy. A patient has many opportunities in life where a person apologizing for a mistake will give reasons for it. He has only the analytic situation in which it is exclusively and consistently his prerogative to be the object of research into reasons and meanings.

现在我要给出的诠释的类型的重点在于病人的提问。为什么她会问,并且我为什么不回答。同样,对于一个我已经犯了的错误,我清楚,我犯了一个错误,而且,就像我意识到的,重点是不同,并且我会再次提出正确的 诠释。如果是时间引起麻烦的错误,我会说。“对不起”,并提供实际的补救办法。当一个人为错误道歉的时候,会为此找一个原因,病人也在生活中有很多这样的机会。他只有在分析的情景中,他对于是研究对象的原因和意义是完全和一贯的。

My contention is that as the real person the analyst is as useful to the patient as any Tom, Dick, or Harry. What makes him of unique use to the patient is his skill, which he came to develop through that special training of which I earlier reminded you. Owing to this skill he is able to discover the reasons and meanings in his patient’s life, his sources of motivation, the complex network of his personality, including the interactions or oscillations between primitive unconscious phantasies and realistic perceptions and judgements. He can discover and present these discoveries in an emotionally significant and therefore dynamically effective manner to the patient. This skill, which the analyst possesses and Tom, Dick, or Harry do not possess, puts him in a unique position vis-à-vis his patient which is necessary and worth preserving.

我的观点是,作为真实的人,分析师对病人来说是有用的,就像对随便什么人都有用一样。对病人唯一有用的是他们的技巧,这些技巧是他通过我之前所提醒你们的特殊训练发展的。由于这项技能,他能够发现在他的病人生命中的原因和意义,他动机的源头,他人格的复杂脉络,包括在原始无意识幻想和现实看法与判断之间的相互的作用和振荡。他会发现并呈现这些情感意义上的发现,并因此为病人提供动力性有效的方式。分析具备的这种其他任何人不具备的这一技巧,将他放在一个特殊的位置面对面的和他的病人谈话 ,这一技巧是必要的而且是值得保存的 。

To avoid misunderstandings: the analyst’s personality is important, since his skill (or should we rather say art?) is in most intricate and complex ways conditioned by it. That is why I said that the analyst’s skill is developed by his training, not acquired. But only through his art is the analyst’s personality to be expressed.


Much of his personality is revealed naturally and inevitably by his appearance,movements, voice, phraseology, furniture in his room, and so on. All of this offers pegs for the patient on which to hang his speculations, phantasies, and recollections. So do the analyst’s mistakes. Analysts do not explain why they have this or that piece of furniture,even when a patient finds it in bad taste and thus a gross mistake. I can see no reason why the analyst should become inconsistent when the mistake occurs in a particular episode.On occasion he may not be able to help it so that he does in fact reveal something personal. But this is an unfortunate accident, which, even if it had no bad effects, does not alter the principle. 


Here is an example. Immediately before a session with a young analyst, I learned of the death of an analyst and was profoundly affected. I considered whether I should cancel the session, but it was too late. The analysand began her session as usual. Twice I could not follow her and asked what she had said. When this happened the second time, she apologized, and said she must be very unclear today and something must be wrong with her. I then said that the fault was mine, and mentioned that I had just heard of the analyst’s death. The young analyst, who had not had any personal contact with him, expressed regrets, adding that she knew how much this must mean to me. The analysis which followed dealt with the theme of my mourning, which had specific and high relevance in view of the patient’s history. She had lost her father when she was a child, and her mother’s widowed state had been an object of long, varied, and intense conflict. The analysis further dealt with the theme of her taking the responsibility for an object’s (that is my) fault. As I later examined the situation, I saw possibilities of dealing with the situation without making such a personal communication as I did make. I acted as I did because I was disturbed. Incidentally, my self—revelation did not in fact give away more information than she would acquire on her own. She would have learned about the event soon after the session, and that I, belonging to the older generation of analysts, would be mourning this analyst’s death. As far as I could see, my disturbance and my personal communication had not done any harm to the patient. Neveretheless, I regard it as a deviation from sound analytic procedure.


In spite of the manifold unavoidable revelations of the analyst’s ‘real’ personality, the analyst is yet self-less. He is the mirror who reflects the patient. Owing to the transference, the patient repeats his past life, his complex emotional experiences with his objects and with his own self. Even if the patient’s assessment of the analyst is correct, the analyst remains a figure in the patient’s inner life and something that he must be left to manipulate according to the dynamics of his own inner processes, determined by unconscious and past experiences. The analyst’s reserve concerning his private life does not aim at mystification. Stimuli which have their source in the patient’s outside life, or in the analytic situation, will result in the production of specific configurations, and in part of these the analyst may be portrayed correctly, in part so fantastically distorted that the fact that the analyst is the patient’s transference-object is obvious.


Could it be, I wonder, that we can tolerate it with greater equanimity if this transference-object is different from the way in which we see ourselves? Is it an uncanny experience when the patient shows us that it is our real self he possesses and manipulates, so that we then want to invoke the reality of the ordinary ‘inter-personal relationship’ to get our real selves back to ourselves?


Dr Fordham rightly recommended that analysts take notice of their irrational experiences. As we all acknowledge, no analyst is finally and perfectly analysed, and neurotic residuals remain. What is the clue to the operation of our neurotic residuals? I think there is a simple answer: whenever we feel the tendency to get away from the analytic situation to a situation of an ordinary inter-personal relationship. Dr Little speaks of counter-transference resistance, though in a different context. Here the dangers of the training analysis must be mentioned. It is easy for the training analyst to become concerned with teaching as opposed to analysing; and the contacts between training analyst and candidate in the society or in teaching situations are repeated intrusions which can be exploited by unconscious factors in both analyst and candidate.


Both Dr Fordham and I have traced the analyst’s disturbed feelings in the countertransference to a time lag between unconscious and conscious understanding. This would mean that something the analyst perceived passed without conscious awareness out of the realms of the conscious ego, and therefore became inaccessible. Are there methods of countering such an event? Trespassing beyond the frame of our symposium, I will mention my view (1956) that the analyst’s continued self-analysis and self-training can lead him to improve the sensitivity of his conscious ego functions, to which I summarily refer as ‘perception’. I have suggested that he can and should adopt a multi-dimensional approach by meeting the analytic situation with the questions: What? Why? Who? To whom? What is the patient doing at this very moment? Why is he doing it? Whom does the analyst represent at this moment? Which past self of the patient is dominant? In what manner does this represent a response to a former interpretation (or another incident)? What, according to the patient’s feelings, did this interpretation mean to the patient? And so on.

Fordham 医生和我都跟踪了分析师在移情中被扰乱的感受,这可以追溯到无意识和意思理解之间的时间差。这意味着,有些东西,分析师感知流逝了,没有在意识上觉察到,超出了意识自我的领域,同时,因此变得无法理解。有什么方法对付这样的情况呢?擅自和超越我们会议(symposium)的框架,我会提及我(1956年)的观点,分析师持续的自我分析和自我训练,可以导致他提高他意识自我功能的敏感度,对此我称之为“觉察力perception”。我曾建议,他可以,而且应该采用多维的途径,通过问:什么?为什么?谁?给谁?的方式与 分析性情景相遇。在那个关键时刻是什么让病人那样做的?为什么他这样做?在这一刻分析中呈现的是谁?病人的哪个过去自我占主导地位?以何种方式来表示对前诠释的(或另一件事情)的回应?那根据病人的感受,这个诠释对于病人意味着什么?等等。

By following closely the patient’s verbal and behavioural expressions, the analyst then finds the dynamic transference interpretation which reflects the patient to the patient. The analyst thus, acting as his patient’s mirror, acts as a supplementary ego to the patient. This is the factor which, in my view, makes repetition change into modification. Again this is a matter of the analyst’s skill.


In conclusion, Freud’s injunction that the counter-transference must be recognized and overcome is as valid today as it was fifty years ago. When it occurs, it must be turned to some useful purpose. Continued self-analysis and self-training will help to decrease incidents of counter-transference.【2】



【1】Gitelson makes a very interesting point when describing instances of this kind. One indication for the fact that such an analysis is not a going concern lies in the patient’s dreams which depict the analyst without any disguise, engaged in an activity obviously injurious to the patient.


【2】Paula Heimann wrote in the margins of a reprint of this paper that she felt doubtful about including it in her Collected Papers. She said that it needed more explanations concerning the dialogue with Jungian analysts, some re-formulations, general editing, and, particularly, ‘the admixturc of counter-transference with transference’ would need further comment.


TAG: Heimann 反移情 海曼 移情
«齐泽克:尾随着巴黎袭击,左派必须拥抱其西方激进根源了 精神分析翻译
延伸阅读· · · · · ·