You are on page 1of 3

The change of psychoanalysis at Freud and after Freud Commentary on What changes in Psychoanalysis? What is to be changed in Psychoanalysis?

(Quels changements dans la psychanalyse? Que changer encore dans la psychanalyse?) by Michel Vincent 16 Vasile Dem. Zamfirescu 17 After reading the very well documented presentation of Michel Vincent, I realized that for many psychoanalysts there is this temptation, that Im also attracted to, to consider that the change in psychoanalysis, the real change starts with the post-Freud authors, not only in a chronological way, but in a logical one too. One of Michel Vincents contributions is to demonstrate that in Freuds works the change is already there, not only as a continuous enrichment, but also sometimes as a spectacular restructuring. Among other things, Michel mentions the classical example of transference, considered firstly as an obstacle in front of the analytical process, and then, several decades later, as the very engine of the same process. Symmetrically thinking, I immediately had in mind the countertransference and its destiny in Freuds works, realizing that, in this regard, the psychoanalysis founders thinking couldnt go beyond a certain 102 The change of psychoanalysis at Freud and after Freud point. He couldnt realize the spectacular revalorization sensed in the case

of transference. The term of countertransference was used for the first time by Freud in a letter addressed to Jung, in 1909. In a letter from 1913, sent to Ludwig Binswanger, Freud underlines that the problem of countertransference is one of the most difficult that the psychoanalysis technique had to face. Freuds suggestion, which can be found in other shapes throughout his works is quite clear: countertransference must be admitted and overcome by the analyst, as a successful way of self-control. Freud never thought about using countertransference in the analytic process, as it happened with transference. I was struck by this discrepancy between Freuds attitude towards transference and countertransference. I asked myself what would be the cause and if it is not this cause that represented an insuperable limit for Freud. In the psychoanalytical literature there are of course numerous hypotheses on this issue. Personally, I consider that a decisive role must have been played by the training and the mentality of the 19th century scientist, namely Freud, transposed on the analysis level. From this point of view, the object and the subject are trenchant distinctive, the relationship is unilateral, from the subject to the object, the epistemic subject having the mission to catch the very essence of the object, which is possible thanks to its neutrality. It is well known that starting with the 1950s, half a century after Freuds death, countertransference became more and more important for the analytical process and was now described in terms of transference and countertransference. Freuds posterity fulfilled what Freud couldnt do, meaning to revalue countertransference. I do not intent to talk about all these, only about a French author: Georges Devereux, who in his paper From anguish to method in human sciences, brings a supreme homage to

countertransference and to the psychoanalysis that assumes and uses it. According to Devereux, a) human sciences have a certain specificity which makes the scientific criteria of natural sciences inapplicable; b) due to this specificity consisting in the cognitive relationship between two people, psychoanalysis can become an epistemic model for the human sciences. The transference and countertransference discovered by psychoanalysis inside the clinical relationship are functioning in any human relationship, the cognitive one included, namely the one characteristic to human sciences. As psycho- unconscious realities, they will disturb the subjectobject rapport. Especially the non-assumed countertransference seriously disturbs the researchers objectivity in human sciences. That is why it is precisely the researchers that assume countertransference and its analysis, and not its denial, that could insure objectivity in this field. For me, Devereuxs theory speaks highly of the contemporary psychoanalysis because it grants countertransference its proper place