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.
The author defines counterresistance as an emotional reaction within the analyst which prevents him from communicating to the patient something perceived by him and demanding interpretation. Counterresistances usually arise out of the analyst's identification with the patient's resistance, but nonetheless Racker believes that they are not chiefly due to conflict within the analyst but rather to his reaction to transference conflicts within the patient; it is this reaction that needs to be further analyzed. These transference conflicts often represent the patient's most important problems. The counterresistance to making the interpretation arises because the understanding it embodies is still incomplete; in order to overcome this it is necessary to discover what has been overlooked in the patient's personality. With this completed knowledge of the patient the counterresistance will be overcome and the interpretation made. The counterresistances described in the examples appear to be relatively superficial and more like reluctance or inhibition on the part of the analyst to give an interpretation which he has not completely formulated; they do not seem to be true counterresistances. It is not demonstrated convincingly that these are really an expression of nuclear or central problems in the patient.