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.
I enjoyed Dr. Peskin's paper enormously and I found as I was listening to it that he and I in our own ways made very similar points. One question I had when I was listening to Dr. Peskin's paper was about his use of the word empathy. According to Dr. Peskin, what is empathy in one place can be countertransference in another place. How is this possible? We do tend to repeat the maxim: “One man's empathy is another man's countertransference.” We also understand that countertransference is likely to result in a failure of empathy. Or that an analyst may, because of his own or her own nature, unresolved conflicts, past, predilections, whatever, be able to be much more empathic with certain aspects of the patient's inner life, including varieties of transference, and less so with others. Or that an analyst's defenses may block awareness of certain aspects of what the patient is communicating. But I am not able to understand how empathy in itself contributes to blank spots in other areas. So I do feel that there needs to be a clarification of what is meant by empathy in relation to countertransference.
In answering that question I can only refer back to what I presented in regard to this patient. It did seem to me that my identifications with the patient in certain areas were gratifying to me and were useful in my understanding him, but also functioned for a time to keep me away from realizing or dealing with other aspects of our relationship that were taking place as well. I think what is worth noting is that