Author's Response

I want to thank the editors of The Forum for the rare opportunity to have my paper criticized by such distinguished colleagues. Frequently, it is only when we expose our problems of technique and questions of theory to others that understanding and growth can occur. I feel indebted to the discussants not only for their views about my interpretations of the analytic situation, but for enlarging our knowledge of the theory of countertransference.

My various doubts about writing this paper have been mostly dispelled by the discussants' response and appreciation of the nature of the problems inherent in countertransference. It feels good to be a part of the movement in analysis today that believes an improvement in technique can be enhanced by increased awareness of the ubiquitous nature of the countertransference.

If there is a central theme in these discussions, it seems to me it is that countertransference phenonema whether helpful or harmful to analysis are inevitable. Most of these responses will be called into action primarily by the patient's transference reaction, but some will either be influenced or ushered in by our own life experiences.

I am particularly indebted to Doctor Hannett for emphasizing the sparsity of literature on the relationship between the effect of external events and the course of analysis. Doctor Hannett's description of how “disastrous events” affected both her work and that of Doctor Gitelson suggests that a consideration of these factors gave them a deeper understanding of the many facets which we have to

deal with in analysis. I concur with her that awareness of such problems “can prepare one to be on guard,” a perception which may not eliminate the problem but may facilitate its handling.

Doctor Tower infers that the countertransference reaction can both foster and hinder analysis and that such reactions are present during each analytic session. This concept categorically contradicts the view that countertransference only appears as an