Nas tramas da contratransferência: história, clínica e política institucional na psicanálise (1886-1915)

Abstract

This study aims to historically investigate the genesis of the notion of countertransference in the work of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), placing it within the context of the professionalization and institutionalization of psychoanalysis between 1886 and 1915. The research adopts a perspective that integrates theoretical, clinical, and politico-institutional dimensions, drawing on references from the history of science and psychoanalytic historians. It aims to analyze how the institutionalization of the psychoanalytic movement influenced the production and circulation of knowledge regarding countertransference. Specifically, the research aims to locate the textual records of the term within the psychoanalytic movement, to follow the debates concerning its politics, and examine the conceptual elaborations of psychoanalytic technique related to the analyst's implication. The methodology consists of historical research of bibliographic nature, based on the analysis of primary sources, including published texts, correspondence, and institutional documents (minutes and bulletins) of the psychoanalytic movement, as well as specialized secondary bibliography. Throughout this process, it was observed that the term "countertransference" has a scarce nominal presence in the Freudian oeuvre, appearing only four times in published texts. However, the clinical issues evoked by the term – the influence of the patient's unconscious feelings (and thoughts) on the analyst – are present beyond the word itself and are inseparable from the clinical and institutional tensions of the time. The investigation indicates that the emergence of countertransference occurred, in part, to avoid embarrassing clinical situations, such as the falling in love between physician and patient, and to prevent potential inconveniences to the legitimacy of the psychoanalytic movement. It is concluded that Freud's treatment of countertransference involved a triple movement: the need for conceptual elaboration in the face of clinical impasses, the restriction of its theoretical development, and a secretive circulation of its dilemmas among the members of the movement.