The Significance of the Analyst's Individual Personality in the Therapeutic Relationship

The purpose of this article is to highlight the individual personality of the analyst as an integral part of the analytic process above and beyond the vicissitudes of the transference-countertransference continuum (Chrzanowski, 1979). In this view, the analyst's personality indirectly permeates all interchanges in the therapeutic field rather than being applied by the analyst in specific instances.

In this connection the relationship between psychoanalytic theory and clinical work becomes an issue. Theory offers a surface texture without providing an appropriate, individually geared tool in the therapeutic process. In general, the various theoretical constructs provide a significant general stimulus and a potential ally up to the point where the patient's particular needs call for an individual response.

It should be emphasized that the analyst's personality has long been viewed as a significant component of the therapeutic process. So far, the primary emphasis in this respect has been placed on a dual process based on a conceptualization of the transference as a regressive as well as progressive manifestation. Fenichel (1941) spoke of a rational transferential component. Elizabeth Zetzel coined the term “the therapeutic alliance.” She conceived of a dichotomy between “the analytic process” and the “analytic situation.” The former refers to the regression and the resolution of the transference neurosis while the latter addresses itself to the analytic setting in which the process takes place. The patient's observing ego is the instrumental agent required for an alliance with the analyst. In essence, an actual relationship between patient and analyst must exist, above and beyond the transference neurosis, that enables the patient to differentiate between objective reality and transference distortions and objections.

In a similar vein, Leo Stone (1961) coined the term “mature