|
Transference or Neurosis of Transference? VILLARI Rafael(1) Without preambles, since the six a thousand characters press me, childbirth of an affirmation of my friend Ricardo Diaz ROMERO, who affirms do not exist transferencial phenomena out of the analytical situation; one is about first of the four basic hypotheses of the text Transference and Discourse, where he says, " the first one - of the hypotheses -, that I consider basic is that the transference (sic) is a self and exclusive kind of production of what occurs in a psychoanalysis, of the rank in act of an analysis." (DIAZ ROMERO, 1992, p.15). I must say that this affirmation, placed in this way, provoked in me, the necessary stimulation for the confrontation of ideas, and this because we know that S. Freud - mentioning the effects that will call transferencials in the relation doctor-patient - affirms, " the psychoanalytic treatment does not create the transference, but simply discloses it, as to as much other occult things in the psychic life." (FREUD, 1905), in other way " These features of the transference, therefore, do not have to be attributed to the psychoanalysis, but yes to the proper neurosis." (FREUD, 1912). As we can see he took care apparently, of divergent affirmations that had made me think about the implied Real in each one of them as I suppose in, despite the appearance, that both affirmations are not exculpatory; exactly that also let us find - in relation to the transference as extra-analytical phenomenon - that "[...] is necessary to give a name to all these things that are produced outside of an analysis that, slowly, we have used to call transference." (DIAZ ROMERO, 1992, p.15). It is clear that under the same significant - Transference - can be included, if not explained the concept in each moment, conflicting affirmations. My supposition respects to the necessity to differentiate the land where the transference phenomena- Übertragungsphe-nomene - of a general form could be located, of that proper one of the psychoanalysis, the transference neurosis. For this, since our meeting treats to detach the lacanian references to the text of S. Freud, I advance that I think that the function - Freudian, has even not been nominated for himself - the desire of the analyst, consists in the pivot from which could be demarcated the different fields, assimilated in the apparent designated discord. We know that, historically, the Freudian discovery begins in the effect of the transferencial phenomenon in medical practice , through its imaginary source -represented in the pair love-hatred. These circumstances were known by the doctors of that time: most experienced amongst them, somehow, they knew(2) to be oriented in this situation - generally, through the suggestion - in favour of the medical therapeutic. However, in many cases, the extreme force and sexual presence of the phenomenon - and mainly the apparent lack of justification of the demand - took the situations as that one that J. Breuer told to S. Freud. In understanding, in this form appears for S. Freud, in the scene assembled for Bertha Pappemheim and her doctor, the possibility of the questioning from which would appear the psychoanalytic speech; it means, that one that would consider an unknown reply to the presence of the love-hatred in the therapeutics relation. So, the hysterics had shown to S. Freud the effects, in the singular suffering of each one of them, of a truth that, although proper, they didn't know; S. Freud knew to determinate the intransitive character of the demand linked to this suffering. Around the supposition of a possible truth of being reached, - question that implies, for the modern man, the presence of a knowledge -, is that appears the possibility of the directed demand to who that imagine to possess it, represented, at that moment, by the figure of the doctor. Years later, J. Lacan will make turn around this question his formula of the S.s.S - this function to which, sometimes, we loan our voice -; over all, from the place of busy prominence for the figure of the ignorance in this dialectic. Let us remember, briefly, that the ignorance, together to the love and the hatred, is part that what J. Lacan called passions presents in the transference .(3) Resuming, to guide me better in the route of my objective I can extract some proper conditions of the transferencial phenomenon: · The presence and disposal to speaks; let's say, the possibilities
of the metaphor field To be able to bet that the words constitute the
land where to look for the truth that questions hardly the citizen; or
in other way: the necessary confidence in the significant · I assume that these conditions circumscribe the cerne from which we can find the transferencial phenomenon in the culture. However, we see that the designated circumstances above, although are part of the conditions of an analysis, do not complete them. We can perceive as these requirements are present, for example, in the therapeutic relations (medicals, psychotherapycs) or even of education - between master and pupil. Let's remember that S. Freud, from the moment where faced the enigma placed for the hysteric - with the aid of J. Breuer -,or, from the moment that could incorporate this enigma while to knowledge to be conquered, he knew to construct through listening, the responses that had allowed him to nominate the transferencial phenomenon that, as we saw above, was the antecedent of the psychoanalytic experience, itself. We suppose that the concept of transference neurosis becomes a watershed, in the direction to demarcate an exclusive field to the psycho-analytic experience. Let's remember that, in a first moment, S. Freud presents the transference neuroses as being those possible of transference - differentiating them thus, of the narcissists neuroses -, but later adds and dislocates the direction in the route of the field where an analysis(4) would be developed. The proposal of S. Freud, as we know, aims not to satisfy the demand - let us remember its character intransitive - for, in this place, offer what J. Lacan called the desire of the analyst. Desire that carries and transmits the paradoxical knowledge of the psychoanalyst: the only one that knows that the knowledge is discovered in the word of the analysed. How we differentiate what we call field of the transferencial phenomenon, of the transference neurosis? From the registration of the singular reply that originates in the analyst's desire .Therefore, I believe that the question of the desire of the analyst became, for J. Lacan the centre of his inquiry; over all in relation to the transmission of the psychoanalysis, "[...] desire of the analyst, desire always supposed, never defined, [... ] " (LACAN, 02/05/1962). Perhaps his School, did not turn around of this question? The attempt of the experience of the Pass, is not the legacy that, in different ways, is tried to rescue to testify about the singular desire that supports and transmits the experience psychoanalytic ties today? In this way, to the three conditions for the appearance of the transference phenomenon designated above we add - thus demarcating, the conditions for the sprouting of the transference neurosis or either, of the properly psychoanalytic experience -, the forth and basic element: · The necessity of an unknown reply to the demand of that immersed in the suffering - thus erected in challenge; it means, the presence in act of the desire of the analyst. This singular reply, supported in the Freudian abstinence, demarcates the field of the psychoanalysis, distinguishing itself from the land where the transferencial phenomenon is submitted to the imaginary drift. I brought this summary finally to affirm that to find the presence of the transferencial phenomenon - differentiated of the neurosis of transference, exclusive to the psychoanalysis - an important question could be taken in the difficult and necessary dialogue with the practical :that excludes the function desire of the analyst, but that they find in its inside, the incidence of the transferencial phenomenon. Bibliography: BARTHES, Roland. Aula. São Paulo Cultrix, 6° edição
1992.
|