The genesis of interpretation between subjectivity and objectivity. Theoretical-clinical considerations

The patient “employs” and “enlists” the analyst in his various transference forms, not so much by attributing a role to him, but by inducing subtle and deep changes in his person. What the patient makes us experience transforms our potential interpretation into words that arise from the emotional “turbulence” established between the patient and the analyst, prompted by the patient's suffering, made “real” by the analyst’s temporary suffering. Interpretation can become alive, meaningful, usable by the patient, only if the analyst allows that turbolence to temporarily become his own, not just to understand the patient, but to transform him through a partial transformation of the analyst himself. To realize this, we have to maintain an ongoing dialogue between our objectivity and our temperate and floating subjectivity.