1 A PLEA FOR HISTORY

Over the last decades, a subtle, but very important shift has taken place in the way in which psychoanalysts relate and make use of the patient's history. In the classical tradition, the present was considered to be an instrument to gain access to the past. The focus was on the repetition of past events and behaviors and it was understood that if the past could be understood, the patient would be freed from his symptoms. In other words, the present was only considered to be important in as much as it served as a guide for the recovery of the past. Nowadays, the recovery of a memory no longer serves as a link in the process of historical reconstruction but simply functions as a confirmation of an interpretation in the here and now. Memories of the past are useful only in as much as they throw light on the here and now of the session. Consequently, the transference/countertransference relationship has become the focal point of analysis at the expense of examining the patient's individual history as he remembers it and is shaped by it. Many contemporary voices in psychoanalysis warn of the perils of genetic reconstructions which, so the argument goes, dilute the intensity of the here-and now interaction between the analyst and the analysand. In other words, making linkages from the present interaction to the past is considered a diversion, a way of taking refuge from the heat of the transference/countertransference tension. Many clinical examples exist where analysts, sometimes knowingly, but often unconsciously, invite their patients on excursions to the past, so that he/she does not have to address the inflammatory nature of the current relationship. In those instances