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.
This paper grows out of reading of the psychoanalytic literature on countertransference and attempts a fresh approach to certain recurring problems, conflicts, and confusions in this field.
Most papers on countertransference begin with the author's definition. I must forego any such attempt, since the subject matter of this paper as a whole is the proper definition of counter-transference.
Until about 1950, countertransference was usually seen as a problem for the analysis and a defect in the analyst, and usually treated dismissively by advising more analysis for the analyst . In recent discussions, for instance Aaron (1974), the emphasis has changed and now the thrust is on how to achieve constructive use of the countertransference. However, an awkwardness in formulation still exists, as well as a tendency to slip back into a critically judgmental attitude towards the analyst.
In what follows I treat the analytic situation as an open system of interlocking subsystems, using diagrams to represent certain aspects of the system. The diagrams increase in complexity as I enlarge the boundaries of the system under discussion and analyze the relationships between its various parts. After constructing a model for the analytic situation, I then use this model in an attempt to clarify certain issues in the literature on countertransference.
The initial schematic and simplified approach is intentional. In viewing the current situation of countertransference theory, including the classicist-totalist polarization (Kernberg 1965, Sandler et al., 1970), I have tried to walk out of the trees a considerable distance to a point from which, I hope, both I and the reader will be able to see the shape of the forest.