ABSTRACT

The author reflects on the ethical status of psychoanalysis. He argues that the ethical specificity of psychoanalysis is determined by its method. He distinguishes between concepts tied to the analytic frame – the protocol, technique and method. The method is the main guarantee of the ethical engagement between analyst and patient – in particular through the transference. The conditions of opening up the transference are maintained by a particular aspect of the analytic method, namely stating the fundamental rule of free association, which turns the setting into a process. The author illustrates his remarks by discussing Sophie’s psychoanalytic treatment in which a passionate transference emerges. A chance external event brings about a rupture in the transitional space of the session’s psychic reality, and thereby makes the specific status of the transference fall away and compromises the analytic work. Consequently, the analyst is deprived of his ethical status as object of the patient’s psychic reality, and as the recipient of the transference, and becomes an ordinary object in the field of everyday objectality. He simply becomes the person he is in external reality, with his various physical attributes.

摘要

作者反思了精神分析的伦理地位。他认为精神分析的伦理特异性是由它的方法决定的。他区分了与分析框架相关的概念——协议、技术和方法。该方法是分析师和患者之间伦理参与的主要保证——尤其是通过移情。开放移情的条件是由分析方法的一个特定方面来维持的，即陈述自由联想的基本规则，这将设置变成了一个过程。作者通过讨论苏菲的精神分析治疗来说明他的评论，其中出现了一种热情的移情。偶然的外部事件导致会议心理现实的过渡空间破裂，从而使移情的特定状态消失并损害分析工作。因此，分析师被剥夺了作为患者心理现实客体和移情接受者的伦理地位，成为日常客体领域中的普通客体。他只是变成了他在外部现实中的那个人，具有他的各种物理属性。