The Therapeutic Function of Hate in the Countertransference

PSYCHOANALYSTS WOULD GENERALLY AGREE that the optimal treatment setting is one which would enable the patient to experience the full range of those intra-personal conflicts which have stunted his development as a person and have impaired his capacity for coping with the problems of living. There would also be general agreement that the analyst may be in the best position to help the patient resolve these conflicts when they are played out in the interpersonal field of the patient-analyst relationship so that the analyst becomes for the patient the primary object of his fantasies and the primary target of his feelings of love and hate. In short, concerning the therapeutic and maturational value of generating and resolving the patient's transferences and resistances toward the analyst, there is little argument.

Opinion varies, however, concerning the therapeutic and maturational value for the patient of those emotional reactions he typically induces in the analyst.

Positive feelings from the analyst are generally recommended as being beneficial to the patient, sometimes with something like moral force; "compassion, interest, warmth, all within limits, are vital for the working alliance." (Greenson, 1967, p. 379) ; "a certain amount of compassion, friendliness, warmth, and respect for the patient's rights is indispensable." (p. 391).

In such statements, it is strongly implied, but not explicitly stated, that it is therapeutically beneficial for the patient to experience positive feelings from the analyst. The subject of emotional communication as a therapeutic tool has always been an uncomfortable one for classical psychoanalysts, implying a departure from an objective analytic stance, acting-out, dilution of the transference, etc. The communication of negative feelings is generally felt to be incorrect or is, at best, mistrusted. However, the following statement by Greenson seems contradictory: "Bearing