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.
One of the factors making psychoanalysis so complicated to study, even though I believe it is crucial to whether or not the psychoanalytic process is successful or ends up in stalemate or failure, is what I call the unformulated countertransference. Any well-analyzed psychoanalyst is aware of his or her countertransference and the fluctuations and vicissitudes of it as the analytic process moves along, but I am suggesting that at the same time certain unformulated, vaguely felt, or even unfelt or unconscious countertransference phenomena develop. For example, Tower (1956) described the chronic countertransference structure. She writes, “The treatment situation between patient and analyst at its deepest and nonverbal levels probably follows the prototype of the mother–child symbiosis… and involves active libidinal exchanges between the two through unconscious nonverbal channels of communication” (p. 253). To put it another way, Tower conceives of certain basic emotional attitudes toward the patient as being generated into a consistent pattern or structure over the months and even the years of working with the patient. This is called the countertransference structure. It interacts with the transference or the transference neurosis of the patient at various unconscious levels and is vital to the outcome of the treatment. In plain language, Tower states,
I simply do not believe that any two people, regardless of circumstance, may closet themselves in a room, day after day, month after month, and year after year, without something happening to each of them with respect to the other.… It is probably far more important that the minor change in the other, namely the therapist, be that which is specifically important and necessary to the one for whom we hope to achieve the major change. (p. 234)