Posted by pseudoname on April 5, 2006, at 18:31:55
In reply to Re: Against Transference, posted by Veracity on April 5, 2006, at 17:12:01
Hey, Veractiy. Thanks for replying.
> And that's not real to me, that's transference
That seems more or less to be what starloree was talking about: declaring out of hand that an emotional response is not “real”. You admit that it
> seems just as real to the person feeling that way as real love does.
I guess I would say then that I can't see a basis for declaring the feeling not real — no basis except Freud's assertions about transference, which close off further inquiry. That is to me the danger of relying on “transference”: what if these feelings have important triggers and effects just like the feelings you would call “real”? What if, just because they're about the therapist and seem shallow, they are therefore ruled to be transference from early childhood, and those important NON-childhood connections are never discovered?
I think it's worth noting that no physiological or developmental basis has ever been observed that supports making a distinction between “real” and transferential emotions.
> We cannot ever really know our therapists beyond limited general information so if we fall IN love with them, it seems like we're just falling in love with some IDEA of them we have in our heads. And that's not real to me, that's transference.
I dunno. Shallowness is not the feature that Freud used in declaring emotional responses to be transference. People sometimes FALL in love for real, as the expression suggests, very easily, on the basis of minimal information and contact, and end up married. That sure seems real.
Also, some feelings between people in a marriage are often labelled transferential, like in “He treats me like I'm his mother.” Those are two relationships (with mother and with wife) where the parties know each other VERY well, and yet it's transference, too, according to the analysts. So the shallowness of the relationship is not a defining factor in making feelings transferential.
But I would still deny that there are any grounds for EVER confidently asserting that a particular current emotional response is a transfer of stored-up emotions toward a figure from childhood. And I think without that evidence, calling any response “transference” prematurely isolates it and cuts off further (better?) inquiry.
poster:pseudoname
thread:628935
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20060325/msgs/629393.html