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.
PSYCHOANALYTIC LANGUAGE AND PSYCHOANALYTIC PRACTICE have become increasingly alienated from each other.1 So far we have not succeeded in forging a universally useful set of terms that lends itself to effective clinical application. Every analyst, despite his level of sophistication, is still bound to a host of myths and rituals that tend to get in the way of observational accuracy.
Among the few exceptions to this general problem are the concepts of transference and countertransference. Transference, following anxiety, is the most ubiquitous psychological manifestation. In contrast to many other concepts, transference is a directly observable phenomenon. Every experienced clinician is familiar with a series of overt or covert, intense emotional manifestations that permeate the therapeutic relationship in one form or another. Accordingly, there is no disagreement about the existence of the transference phenomenon per se, inasmuch as transference neither pertains to a structure of the psychic apparatus nor to a metapsychological construct. Sharp differences of opinion occur, however, when it comes to a definition of the basic nature of transference, its particular origin and its clinical implications in the therapeutic process.
It is the thesis of this paper that transference and countertransference constitute a multitide of phenomena that transcend the traditional meaning of the term transference. I view transference and countertransference as reciprocal and interlocking. I believé that the separation of one from the other is not useful clinically. In my judgment, self-monitoring pertains to transferential as