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 LITERATURE OF THE LAST quarter-century reflects two evolutionary developments in the operational concept of countertransference. One is the tempering of the wholly negative attitude it originally evoked, which was so succinctly expressed by Fliess: "undesirable and a hindrance … Ideally, therefore, countertransference should not occur. But it does … always resistance, must always be analyzed" (1953, p. 286). Without disputing the ubiquity of countertransference or dismissing its resistance potential, the theoretical formulations of all psychoanalytic schools currently accord some measure of respect to the phenomenon. In this process of detoxification, outright proscription has given way to thoughtful assessment and specific recommendations for the constructive use of countertransference.
A parallel development, more implicitly suggested in the literature since mid-century, has been the gradual dissolution of the initially monolithic concepts of transference and countertransference. The simultaneity of the so-called widening scope of indications for psychoanalysis and reports of essentially different transference states observed in patients with the more severe emotional disorders was more than coincidental. The existence of narcissistic transference and its implications for the treatment of schizophrenic (Spotnitz, 1969) and non-psychotic patients (Kohut, 1971) were comprehensively explored. Formulations on a continuum of transference