Countertransference Reexamined1

I WISH TO DISCUSS MY MISGIVINGS about the construct of countertransference as originally formulated and then to examine how my thoughts have evolved in respect to this problem.

The classical formulation troubled me because I accepted the validity of the need to correct unconstructive intrusions by the therapist into the therapeutic transaction but also intuited that the correction could lead to an impoverishment of therapeutic experience. While not certain that this challenge would be construed as valid to others, I believed an unacknowledged scientific controversy was emerging. I expressed myself on this topic in an article entitled "Exploring the Therapeutic Use of Countertransference Data" (Tauber, 1954). The issues as I saw them then, are expressed in the introductory passage of this article:

This paper is designed to illustrate the fact that countertransference phenomena may under certain circumstances afford an opportunity to evoke new material about the patient, the analyst, or the relationship, and that they may be used therapeutically to increase mutual spontaneity. The author believes that there is a real need for developing a scientific method to utilize constructively the negative components introduced by the therapist in the treatment situation and to determine which of these components are worthy of mutual exploration. According to classical psychoanalytic theory, countertransference reactions represent unanalyzed portions of the therapist's personality which either transparently or unwittingly interfere with the treatment situation. These reactions may be due to blind spots, private needs, irrelevant attitudes, biases, or moral prejudices; and they call for a change to a more productive orientation, necessitating their analysis. This is the basis in psychoanalytic theory for recognizing that any person engaged in intensive psychotherapeutic work with others needs a training analysis—a recognition which represents one of the most valuable discover