Normal Counter-Transference and Some of its Deviations1

Counter-transference is an old psycho-analytic concept which has recently been widened and enriched. We used to think of it mainly as a personal disturbance to be analysed away in ourselves. We now also think of it as having its causes, and effects, in the patient and, therefore, as an indication of something to be analysed in him (1).

I believe this more recently explored aspect of counter-transference can be used, in the way described, for example, by Paula Heimann (2), to achieve an important technical advance. But of course the discovery that counter-transference can be usefully employed does not imply that it has ceased ever to be a serious impediment. And as both aspects in fact exist, we may surmise that there may be a problem about their similarities and differences which still deserves investigation. Perhaps this problem may be put in the form of three related questions: What is 'normal' counter-transference? How and under what conditions is it disturbed? And how can disturbances be corrected and in the process perhaps used to further an analysis?

Normal counter-transference

As to the analyst's correct or normal attitude to the patient, there are a number of aspects which have been mentioned both in papers and discussions. Freud spoke of a 'benevolent neutrality'. This I take to imply that the analyst is concerned for the welfare of his patient, without becoming emotionally involved in his conflicts. It also implies, I think, that the analyst, in virtue of his understanding of psychic determinism, has a certain kind of tolerance which is the opposite of condemnation, and yet by no means the same as indulgence or indifference.

Many analysts have stressed the element of scientific curiosity, and certainly we should not get far without this sublimation. But, by itself, it seems a little too impersonal. Concern for the patient's welfare comes, I think, from the fusion of two other basic drives: the reparative, which counteracts the latent