Countertransference as an Indicator in Victimology1

IN A RECENT PAPER (1986), in an attempt to contribute towards the analysis of countertransferential processes, I suggested the term "therapist-induced-countertransference" (T.I.C.) to denote those aspects of countertransference (as defined by diverse authors) that constitute exclusive expression of therapists' unresolved conflicts, in the creation or activation of which, patients play no active part. I also suggested the term "client-induced-countertransference" (C.I.C.) to denote those aspects of countertransference (as defined by diverse authors) in the creation or activation of which, patients play an active, conscious or unconscious role. I showed, with clinical examples, that therapist-induced-countertransference ought to be resolved by the therapist without involving the patient, whereas client-induced-countertransference ought to be considered as interpretable data. I also indicated that, despite this clear-cut theoretical separation of T.I.C. and C.I.C., these aspects of countertransference will be encountered rarely as distinct phenomena. They are, on the contrary, most often found to be intricately intertwined with each other. I suggested the term "combined countertransference" to denote this configuration. Implementing as I went along with the help of further clinical material, I suggested that in these compounded situations the contributing components of countertransference, T.I.C. and C.I.C., ought to be analysed each in accordance with its defined origin: T.I.C. components to be resolved by the therapist without involving the patient; C.I.C. components to be included in the therapy.

In that paper I mentioned briefly that these ideas had occurred