You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
April 29, 2003. I read with pleasure Joshua Ehrlich's recent article on the psychoanalytic training experience (). In an effort to highlight his point of view, however, he reaches two specious conclusions regarding my paper on indirect countertransference and candidate training requirements (). First, on page 194 he misreads me as separating the “reality” of training (indirect countertransference) from the fantasies it elicits for both candidate and analysand. Here he confuses a theoretical proposition with the realities of actual analytic work, thereby committing a category error. In theory it is possible to speak of indirect countertransference reactions as a separate reality, whereas in a control analysis they are part of, as Ehrlich notes, the “crucible in which the candidate's countertransferences and the analysand's transferences play themselves out.” The training requirements are an external reality and a trigger for indirect countertransference reactions in control cases, but the complexities of each unique candidate-analysand pair will shape the nature and extent of those reactions. My point was to highlight the need in theory to separate out the indirect countertransference reactions specific to analytic training, in order to facilitate the candidate's awareness of such triggers.
Second, Ehrlich says, “Jaffe (along with many other writers) implies that the intrusion of external factors is somehow unusual in candidate analyses.” While I cannot speak for other writers, I do want to make it clear that this writer holds no such belief. Various external factors can and will impact analytic work throughout the analyst's career. My point was merely to draw attention to some external factors relevant specifically to control analyses.