Ernest Angel Replies

It is tempting to follow Dr. Eigen's challenging idea that after the resolution of the analyst's anxious anger his emerging empathy with the antagonistic and contemptuous patient triggered off a second countertransference—probably a reaction to the first: the need to get relief from continuous attacks, to end the hostility in a mutual empathic and sympathetic understanding, and to float, as it were, in blissful merger with the patient through the no longer therapeutic but regressive spaces.

However, to allow for any valid therapeutic stance or action, the analyst's defensive rage had to be resolved—no matter whether this would be followed by sustaining the patient's aggression or by trying to facilitate some modicum of therapeutic alliance.

Why did the analyst choose to clear the road to catharsis? It was obvious that the patient's paranoid defiance was rooted in profound deprivation and disillusionment throughout her childhood, culminating in her father's traumatic visit. Desperate attempts to idealize a brutish and graceless environment were indicated by her dream (mother is not a whore but a goddess of love) and her expectation (father is an affectionate guide and not a drifter and raper). The resulting negative self-object formation led to a projection pattern of sadistic control and preventive and revengeful withdrawal. Significant repetitions were touched off by the two preceding therapists, who were seen by the patient as utterly indifferent and exploitative. No hunger for catharsis or merger on the part of the analyst was needed to persuade him that in order to break that pattern he had to differentiate himself from all his predecessors (i.e., their images introjected or projected by the patient) in the most impressive fashion.

At this point, a historic factor becomes relevant. Fifteen years had passed between the writing of the paper and the period of treatment (the time lapse recommended by Freud to prevent recognition). The prevailing technical rule in that