ABSTRACT
An overall view of the technical positions defended by psychoanalysts concerning the dangers to which analytic treatment is exposed reveals great disparity. The first observation is that the authors point to the fact that the current population of analysands, or those who turn for help to psychoanalysts, does not constitute a homogenous mass but, on the contrary, forms a diverse ensemble depending on the types of structure to which they are attached. Broadly speaking, in France, analysis is reserved as far as possible for the classical indications of analysis. The rule of silence is respected, interpretations are rare, short, allusive, and selective, and the transference is recognized without being systematically interpreted. Donald W. Winnicott used to say that the interpretation was an indication of the limit of the analyst's understanding.
