ABSTRACT

Every analyst knows that an essential condition in a patient’s decision to undergo analysis is the unpleasure, the increasing discomfort and ultimately the suffering he experiences. This chapter examines the role of the analyst, in a wider conception of countertransference, including his own imaginative elaboration. It explores the function of the analytic setting and its relation to mental functioning, as shown by the process of symbolization. The chapter discusses the role of narcissism, which opposes and complements that of object relations, as much in theory as in practice. Three tendencies can be distinguished in the parallel development of psychoanalytic theory and practice. In the first tendency analytic theory fastened on the historical reality of the patient. In the second tendency interest moved towards object relations. In the third tendency one can pinpoint a movement which concentrates on the mental functioning of the patient, while in regard to clinical practice questions are asked about the function of the analytic setting.