The Dynamics of Transference: Are you a good transference or a bad transference?

As I mentioned in my previous post, I was struggling with the question of what forms of transference acted as resistance within psychoanalysis and what forms support the work of psychoanalysis. In "The Dynamics of Transference," Freud takes on this question directly. He admits that some forms of transference, "a relation of affectionate and devoted dependence," can "just as easily serve to facilitate admissions, and it is not clear why it should make things more difficult." He goes on to say that "we readily admit that the results of psycho-analysis rest upon suggestion... by employing suggestion in order get [the analysand] to accomplish a piece of psychical work ." I think the word "admission" here is particularly telling -- this is Freud working from the perspective that all you need to do is get the analysand to admit the repressed memory that already exists within their unconscious. If we are using a view of the unconscious as a proto-conscious rather than a second mind (see this post if you want to read more about the difference), then admission is not the ultimate goal, and the picture is going to get more complicated than that very rapidly.

Freud seeks to resolve this conflict by differentiating between the forms of transference. Positive transference manifests as affectionate feelings, while negative transference manifests as hostile ones. "Positive transference is then further divisible into transference of friendly or affectionate feelings which are admissible to consciousness and transference of prolongations of those feelings into the unconscious." Freud then goes on to say that only the unconscious positive transference and negative transference have to be made conscious, and because the other form of positive transference is "admissible to consciousness and unobjectionable" it "persists and is the vehicle of success in psychoanalysis."

First off, isn't the entire point of transference the fact that it's not "admissible to consciousness and unobjectionable"? It wouldn't be transference if it was done freely and consciously, it would be something else entirely, or at least this is the position Freud seems to suggest elsewhere in the essay. He asks, "How does it come about that transference is so admirably suited to be a means of resistance?", that is, why does the resistance of the unconscious to becoming conscious and the resistance to psychoanalytic treatment manifest so freely in the form of transference? Freud glibly notes that we find it hardest to be open about our feelings and desires to the objects of those desires. But that's the precise moment where he begins to talk about forms of positive treatment that aid treatment. He suggests that this is a solution, but it seems nonsensical to suggest that transference manifests are resistance becomes sometimes transference isn't really resistance.

Perhaps it is not useful to think of transference as the resistance the unconscious throws up when it's on the run. Otherwise, why would transference manifest so readily in other relationships? I believe that Freud has everything flipped around. Transference can only manifest as resistance within the psychoanalytic encounter. What sets psychoanalysis apart is not the fact that it elicits transference, positive or negative. In day to day life transference is experienced as natural, inevitable, but within the psychoanalytic encounter it can become a developmental tool. This perspective lessens the importance of Freud's psychophysics (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and for every advance in analysis there is an actual and opposite resistance) and focuses more on psychoanalysis as a way of harnessing the developmental thrust of the unconscious.

I'm still very suspicious about distinguishing between positive and negative transference, and assuming that it is impossible for negative transference to be beneficial to treatment. I also have problems with the focus on the power of suggestion within psychoanalysis, if for no other reason than that there are many other forms of therapy that seem better suited towards telling people how they should run their lives. There are probably much better techniques suited for convincing people of some truth about their lives than psychoanalysis, although psychoanalysis has certainly been treated as such.

I have more to say about this, but I'll talk about it for my post on the case study of Dora, because it is very related.