The transference is always active between the scholar and what he or she studies. This is especially so when the subject is trauma. So Dominick LaCapra argues, and I think he’s right. What does the transference mean in the case of trauma? For LaCapra it means that “at some level you always have a tendency to repeat the problems you are studying.” (p. 142)
More generally,
by transference I mean primarily . . . the tendency to repeat in one’s own discourse or practice tendencies active in, or projected into, the other or object [of study]. (P. xv)
In the case of trauma, those writing about it often write as though they have been traumatized. The writing of Cathy Caruth and Shoshana Felman is frequently in “unmodulated, orphic, cryptic, indirect allusive form” that is designed to transmit the disorientation of trauma. (LaCapra, p. 106) This may be suitable for trauma fiction, as it is sometimes called (though I have questioned that in another post), but it is unnecessary and counterproductive when trying to explain trauma.
