Is the transference feared by the psychoanalyst?

The author considers whether the reason for the variety and multiplicity of theories about the transference might lie in analysts' fears of its dangers. He reviews Freud's development of the concept from its origins, when it was seen as resistance, to its use as a fundamental instrument of the treatment, and lays particular emphasis on its perception as a burden. Classical and later authors' conflicting views of the transference and its management are surveyed in the light of the common ground otherwise existing between schools. Views of the negative transference are also presented. Some clinical vignettes are given, showing the analyst responding to the patient's transference, grappling with his own countertransference feelings and using them to illuminate the clinical situation. The author emphasises the importance of the analyst's training and experience in enabling him to withstand the regressive onslaught of the patient's projections without resorting to theory-related or technical defensive measures. In his view, the transference is not in itself a resistance but may be used as such. The analyst must not interpret merely in order to get rid of the anxiety aroused in himself by the patient's regressive feelings. The paper ends with a consideration of the importance of intuition, the countertransference and sublimated projective counter-identification.