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.
Speaking and writing about countertransference – and, inevitably, about transference – means focusing on the core of the psychoanalytic discussions and, in general, on the heart of clinical and therapeutic work. With History of countertransference we are therefore projected into a fundamental dimension of (yesterday’s and today’s) psychoanalysis.
Just over 110 years have passed since the concept of countertransference was first evoked by Sigmund Freud during the Nuremberg Congress in March 1910. From those distant times, Alberto Stefana has retraced with extreme care and attention all the stages of the multifaceted journey of this idea.
This work is above all a very pleasant read. Written in a clear and linear style, understandable even to those who are not experts in the specific subject, this work is, at the same time, very rich in information and considerations. The bibliography covers over 400 titles, from classics to contemporary authors. It is a book from which you can start a number of explorations, and to which you can go back to refocus on the main topic.
Certainly, this book is about the history of psychoanalysis, but it is also extremely useful for supervisors and for full-time clinicians, and (of course) for those primarily interested in the development of theoretical concepts, as they can find here everything they are looking for.
Following the history of the concept of countertransference – and, by extension, the dynamics of the analyst–patient dyad – means retracing the history of psychoanalysis. It means going through central phases of the international psychoanalytic movement, and exploring the different theoretical positions of different analysts. Even more interesting is to understand why, how, and when these theoretical positions have changed over time. The author also examines the great variety of psychoanalytic theories and schools, confronting these developments with the well-known idea of a common ground.
Superficially, it can be affirmed – and st