The Transference; Between the Re-petition and the Duel

Abstract

Transference is understood as an appropriate and concealed way by means of which wish tries to be recognized. This concealed way of expressing wish, or imagining it as completed, leads us to consider transference as the formulation of an agreement… a transaction such as that of dreams, symptoms, etc. Wish is directed in a disguised way towards who is not. ‘false link’, and transference —indispensable tool for cure to progress— is also resistance. We could speak of the transference work in the same way
as Freud spoke of the dream work. It is established that during the psychoanalitic process together with this transference work there might be a process of mourning. Each Insight of the person analysed might suppose a loss. Its repetition might be a way of elaborating the mourning process, a part of the process of accomplishing the loosening of the libido. Repetition in the transference work would not come, then from the death drive, but it might have its source in the unsatisfied wish and it might constitute at the same time an attempt at reaching satisfaction, an attempt at elaborating the mourning for the lost object, definitely absent. Therefore, repetition in this case, might not be ‘the eternal return to the same situation’. The transference work would produce, create something new on the mark left by the lost object. It is considered that in the transferential link established with the analyst the object is re-peated, summoned, thus elaborating simultaneously the mournings for the losses and for the loosening of the libido which are implied in each insight. These losses finally remit the impossible object. Irrecoverable because inexistent (the breast and the mother in Freud, the a object in Lacan) of which all the others are substitutes. Wish, always unsatisfied is ‘forced to
become word within the mould demand imposes on it’ (J. Dor, 1986). Analysis is woven with words, directed towards the analyst in the transference, words that are repetition and re-petition. It is pointed out that the summoning word directed to the analyst perpetuates the parting with the primary object since there is no possibility of meeting up with it again because the analyst is only a substitute. In this way, the relationship implies a mourning that has to be elaborated as well. The analyst neither is nor possesses the lost object-in (the) reality-inexistent. Perpetual parting, reiteration of inexistence. Wish and mourning, ultimately referred to the same object, would meet to determine the transferential (re)petition-production. Finally one of the many questions is mentioned. It is referred to the bringing the analysts to an end that is dis-engagement on the ‘false link’ between patient and analyst. Analysis that can be ended or endless analysis? In so far as the patient can have access to the true part of his/ her wish he/she will feel dis-illusioned about his/her analyst who is not and does not possess the object which causes the patient’s wish. Castration, loosening, irreducible limit that puts an end to the absence which convokes the wish: end (limit) of the analysis? Or paradoxically, infinitude of the analysis?