Exploring a patient's shift from relative silence to verbal expressiveness: Observations on an element of the analyst's participation

By tracing a portion of close process of a patient's shifts from a relatively silent and inhibited stance to one in which he is beginning to verbalize more about his experience and fantasy, I will illustrate some tensions between the analyst's role as facilitating expressiveness and as occupying a place in the patient's internalized world. Since the analyst's functions as facilitator and as internal object (often an obstacle to the patient's expressiveness) are sometimes in conflict with one another, it is important for the analyst to be able to work internally with this conflict as he works with his patient. Splitting processes between these two functions may provide the analyst with cues related to the patient's and the analyst's resistance to understanding the patient's communication of unconscious conflict and the patient's recruitment of the analyst into the patient's internalized world.     

THE CONCEPT OF OBJECTIVE COUNTERTRANSFERENCE AND ITS ROLE IN A TWO-PERSON PSYCHOLOGY

Objective countertransference comprises those feelings the analyst experiences with the patient that are repetitions of feelings from the patient's life outside the analysis. It is viewed as being induced by the patient and is understood in the context of the patient's life, not the analyst's. The concept is used to understand the relationship of some of the analyst's feelings to recurrent interpersonal patterns in the patient's life. It has often been viewed as being incompatible with a two-person psychology. Here, in contrast, it is argued that objective countertransference is only one current within the analyst's total emotional response to the patient, and that it should be conceptualized as a component of a broader two-person psychology. However, the use of objective countertransference as a conceptual tool highlights aspects of the analytic relationship that differ from those emphasized in current two-person models. A case example is analyzed from both perspectives to illustrate their similarities and differences. Although the concept of objective countertransference can enrich the analyst's understanding of certain dimensions of the analytic relationship, it is not a theory of technique and it is not wedded to any particular style of psychoanalytic intervention.     

Countertransference evolution in theory and practice

A framework is suggested for conceptualizing countertransference, based on expansion of the concept emerging subsequent to Freud's original view of the phenomenon: from Ucs to Cs, from reactions to transference to all reactions, from the analyst's neurosis to the analyst's functioning, from self-analysis to self-scrutiny, from obstacle to contribution. Particular attention is called to the advantages of maintaining the distinction between the patient's transference and the analyst's countertransference; the importance for successful psychoanalytic work of being aware of the subtleties of countertransference in work with neurotic patients, especially in contrast to the blatant countertransference experiences more disturbed patients thrust upon the analyst; the need for further investigation of the relations between the analyst's empathy, regression, and countertransference; the lack of understanding of and information about the homosexual countertransference, based on insufficient knowledge of the mechanisms of resistance to self-analysis, among other reasons; and the need for more reliable information about the limits of and indications for using countertransference responses in particular kinds of clinical situations, whether for informing the patient as to the analyst's responses to him, for informing the analyst in the interpretive process, or in formulating reconstructions. A clinical example provides an illustration of the complexity of countertransference-transference interaction and of the impact of countertransference on the transference.     

Transference-countertransference

This paper concerns the dynamics of transference-countertransference as they reveal themselves in object relations and specifically in the psychoanalytic process. It is postulated that transference and countertransference cannot be viewed separately, that both analyst and patient exhibit transference-countertransference reactions, and that they are normal ingredients of the psychoanalytic process. Brief clinical illustrations are provided. Attention is called to special problems when the patient's defenses are primitive, and to the therapeutic value of the analyst's countertransference.     

On dreaming one's patient: reflections on an aspect of countertransference dreams

This paper explores the phenomenon of the countertransference dream. Until very recently, such dreams have tended to be seen as reflecting either unanalyzed difficulties in the analyst or unexamined conflicts in the analytic relationship. While the analyst's dream of his/her patient may represent such problems, the author argues that such dreams may also indicate the ways in which the analyst comes to know the patient on a deep, unconscious level by processing the patient's communicative projective identifications. Two extended clinical examples of the author's countertransference dreams are offered. The author also discusses the use of countertransference dreams in psychoanalytic supervision.     

The analyst's theory: A third source of countertransference

The author asserts that the analyst's theory, personal and/or academic, is an important source of countertransference which complicates our traditional understanding of the analyst's emotional responses as being constructed from a mix of his transferences and the patient's effects on him. From this perspective, theory - because it has no intrinsic relevance to the essential phenomena of individual analytic processes - may be a confounding, as well as a necessary, factor in clinical work. Although the analyst's theory might be conceptualized as a component of his personality that shapes his emotional reactions to a patient, the author believes that there is a valuable increment of conceptual clarity and additional clinical utility to thinking about a more direct role of theory in the process of countertransference formation. He uses aspects of the clinical analysis of narcissistic resistances to illustrate how some theories might predispose an analyst to confounding unconscious enactments by generating either positive or negative countertransferences which can be used defensively by the patient and/or analyst. He also illustrates how, in some contexts, an analyst's theory might attenuate potentially informative countertransference reactions and interfere in this way with the analyst's apprehension of the patient's psychic functioning. Finally the author addresses the importance of 'fit' between an analyst's working theory and a patient's psychopathology, and considers implications of his ideas for psychoanalytic training and practice.     

THE EXTERNAL OBSERVER AND THE LENS OF THE PATIENT-ANALYST MATCH

A focus on the match between patient and analyst places attention on the dynamic effect of the interaction of character and conflict of both participants on the process that evolves between them. Match is neither a predictive nor static concept. Rather it refers to an unfolding transaction that itself shifts and changes during the course of analytic work. The treating analyst's perception of the effect of this match is by necessity limited by the analyst's own blind spots and other countertransference phenomena. Reporting the analyst's clinical experience to an analytically trained observer, external to the dyad, may broaden the analyst's perspective. Using the lens of the match, a colleague in the role of supervisor, consultant or peer can provide feedback from which the analyst may acquire insight. As a result of this process, the influence that the participants' similarities and differences have upon each other becomes clear to the analyst. This awareness, in turn, may lead the analyst to appreciate the effect of the analyst's stance of distance or closeness and to evaluate whether at this phase of treatment it is beneficial or detrimental to the analytic process. Clinical illustrations of the effect of the external observer's feedback in relation to the patient—analyst match are provided.     

The disregarded analyst and the transgressive process: discontinuity, countertransference, and the framing of the negative.

This paper describes the difficulty of working with patients who have adopted conflict solutions common to perversion. These analysands' rapid shifts from one discontinuous mental state to another draw the analyst into a regressive transference/countertransference engagement characterized by alternations of actualized self and object representations. The analyst's disengagement from this regressive interaction is crucial, but difficult. A detailed clinical example illustrates the process of disengagement as well as the transformation of this transference into a more traditionally consolidated one. A technical approach is suggested and questions of representation and symbolization are explored.     

What does the analyst want? Free association in relation to the analyst’s activity, ambition, and technical innovation

The author traces the history of free association, the "fundamental rule," through the Freud-Ferenczi relationship and controversy. The use of "activity," first proposed by Freud in 1910 with phobic and compulsive patients, was then championed by Ferenczi in the early twenties. The goal of activity was to enhance-or, more accurately, "to force"--the associations into the analysis. Subsequently, Ferenczi reversed himself, concluding that his analysis was re-creating the traumatic parental environment which originally caused the patient's neurosis. The far-reaching results of Ferenczi's change of heart included a redefinition of countertransference and added the techniques of "indulgence" and "relaxation" to soften Freud's emphasis on "abstinence" and "frustration. A vignette from the analysis of a dangerously self-destructive bulimic patient illustrates the value of free association in helping a patient feel understood by the analyst without pressure to give up her symptoms. Constantly monitoring his therapeutic ambition, the analyst demonstrates the value of free association in enhancing the patient's understanding of herself and of the survival value of her symptoms. This vignette highlights the fact that the analyst's therapeutic ambition makes freedom to associate even more difficult for the patient and inevitably intrudes on the analyst's evenly hovering attention. Of course for the analyst to have a therapeutic wish is necessary and desirable but for the analyst to demand change promotes compliance and hidden rebellion which limits the analysis.     

A case of sadomasochistic transference: the analyst's contributions to perverse enactments

A young woman who came for treatment of anxiety and depression is presented in a detailed case report. She developed an erotized transference that was predominantly sadomasochistic and included her intention to torture and castrate the analyst. The author demonstrates how the analyst's behavior, including countertransference contributions, assisted in shaping the vicissitudes of sadomasochistic transference paradigms. A collusion was established between patient and analyst in a manner that enabled the analytic dyad to work productively toward an eventual resolution of the patient's conflicts. The author discusses the case's complexities pertaining to enactments, while emphasizing the importance of carefully monitoring and addressing countertransference experiences that mold and shape such a collusion.     

The role of the analyst in the analytic cure during times of chronic crises

The role of the analyst in psychoanalytic treatment during periods of chronic crises is illustrated with material from two case studies. The first clinical vignette shows an analyst able to stay with fears evoked in the patient by the traumatic external reality, even as the analyst tried to explore with the patient an inner universe that handled this reality in unique ways. The second case study focuses on how the analyst's countertransference during this period of chronic crises, which she was experiencing along with the patient, made it difficult for her to contain the patient's fears and anxieties, because of the threat to her own existence, as well as to her identity as an analyst. In this second case the analyst, out of denial of the external situation, focused blindly on the patient's internal reality in order to counteract her own sense of passivity and helplessness in the confrontation with death and destruction. She clung to "classical" analysis by trying to analyze the patient's defenses, work them through, etc., thus making so-called analytic interpretations rather than staying with the patient's fear, as well as her own, and helping the patient more directly. A turning point came with the birth of the analyst's granddaughter; fear for the new arrival's safety made the analyst sharply aware that it is impossible to ignore external reality, that it must be given a place both in everyday life and in analysis. This awareness enabled the analyst to contain the patients' fears, which helped him feel more supported and facilitated change.     

Playing one's cards face up in analysis: an approach to the problem of self-disclosure

A policy of consistent willingness on the analyst's part to make his or her own views explicitly available to the patient is discussed and illustrated by clinical vignettes. Playing one's cards face up is contrasted with contemporary conceptions of selective self-disclosure by the analyst, especially with respect to the way ground rules for the analytic treatment relationship get established. The objective of the analyst playing his or her cards face up is to create a candid dialogue, thus facilitating maximally effective collaboration between analyst and patient. Concerns about the analyst's self-disclosure foreclosing exploration of the patient's unconscious fantasies and transferences, or intruding upon the patient's autonomy, are addressed, as is the relation between self-disclosure and an individual analyst's personal style.     

An interruption in unconscious communication in the analytic couple

The authors describe an interruption in communication in the analyses of two patients, which gradually brings the analytic process to a halt/standstill. They propose several hypotheses for understanding this situation. One explanation is mutual identification of primitive superegos in the analytic couple which generates a moralizing effect thereby hindering investigation and discovery. They emphasize the importance of countertransference involvement which partly provokes this particular type of impasse. They also suggest the idea of shared acting out, with complementary participations of analyst and patient. In this way the analytic couple supports a 'bastion' which protects against the risk of breaking the omnipotence of patient and analyst or contributes to this omnipotence. Their shared unconscious phantasy feeds collusion linked to unconscious persecutory guilt. The authors also describe movements to break free from this impasse. The enclave created by the analytic couple is detected and subsequently worked through by way of the patient's contribution of dream material and the analyst's work with her countertransference.     

The role of the patient's remembered history and unconscious past in the evolution of Betty Joseph's 'Here and now' clinical technique (1959-1989)

The author historicizes one aspect of Betty Joseph's ongoing technical contributions in terms of its originating London kleinian context. Early on she drew upon both the patient's remembered history and unconscious past, linking these experiences in past-to-present transference interpretations in order to effect psychic change. In evolving the technique of 'here and now' analysis, Joseph came to emphasize a communicative definition of projective and introjective identification as well as the significance of enactments while marginalizing the use of part-object anatomical interpretative language. She gradually set aside directly linking the patient's past with the present, compelled now by making direct contact with her patients. She now tracked how difficult patients acted in and responded to interpretations from moment to moment. The author maintains that the explicit and implicit conceptual work of Wilfred Bion as well as Joseph's continuous group workshop for analysts led to an increased understanding of the patient's projective impact on the analyst's countertransference responses, and thereby increased the analyst's capacity with 'difficult to treat' narcissistic spectrum patients described by her colleague, Herbert Rosenfeld. In recent work, while Joseph continues to elucidate what patients recall about their early past, she formats her understanding in terms of a direct analysis of the structure of the patient's projected internal object relations in the transference. The analyst works with the patient's communications and enactments, with a greater emphasis on a more 'inside-to-outside' understanding of transference in contrast to the earlier 'past-to-present' work associated with both Freud and Klein. This investigation concludes with one example of Betty Joseph's significant impact on contemporary kleinian technique by taking up some of Michael Feldman's work. Now the analyst listens to the 'past presented,' the patient's projected internal world, as well as tracks how the patient hears and subtly mishears interpretations for defensive, equilibrium-maintaining purposes, as the analyst attempts to effect psychic change by widening the ego's perceiving functions.     

Toward a definition of psychoanalytic neutrality

The word and concept of neutrality play an important but confusing role in the history of psychoanalysis. Does neutrality imply indifference? The origin of this ambiguity is traced to the fact that Freud himself never used the word "neutrality" (Neutralitaet) in his own writings. (His term Indifferenz was translated as "neutrality" by Strachey.) The essence of the controversy that has simmered in the psychoanalytic literature ever since is contained in the question: "Is remaining true to the concept of neutrality somehow antithetical to the analyst's genuine involvement with the patient?" In this paper, I examine the feeling and power aspects of the word and suggest that the concept of neutrality becomes clinically useful when the analyst asks himself the question, "Neutral to what?" The analyst's awareness of his motives for recognizing and addressing certain conflicts and for overlooking others is heightened. With three clinical vignettes as illustrations, I explore the role of the concept of neutrality in deepening our understanding of (1) the analytic relationship; (2) The influence, on the conduct of the treatment, of the analyst's goals and theoretical persuasion regarding how the goals are to be achieved. As examples, I use the current debates over the relative value of the analyst's focusing his attention on: (a) the patient's mind in the hour rather than his life outside the hour and, (b) transference over nontransference interpretation. Finally, I emphasize the far-reaching implications of adding an explicit concept of "external reality" to A. Freud's exclusively intrapsychic definition of the "objective" analyst's position of neutrality as equidistant from id, ego, and superego. The addition of this fourth point to the analyst's "compass" widens the analytic field toward which the analyst is neutral. The concept of neutrality with respect to specifiable conflicts is thereby also broadened to include (a) interpersonal conflict within the psychoanalytic relationship and (b) conflict within the analyst. With these explicit additions, the concept of neutrality with respect to conflict becomes congruent with the current emphasis on the nonauthoritarian two-persons aspects of the psychoanalytic relationship, without detracting from the primary analytic goal of deeper understanding of intrapsychic conflict.     

Analytic neutrality, anonymity, abstinence, and elective self-disclosure

Recent contributions to the psychoanalytic literature propose new ways of understanding analytic neutrality, anonymity, abstinence, and self-disclosure. They advocate elective self-disclosure by the analyst as an antidote to the allegedly game-playing quality of transference and resistance analysis. The analytic relationship, they assert, becomes unreal when attempts are made to observe the principles of neutrality and abstinence. Both are seen as ill-conceived because of the irreducible subjectivity and unwarranted authority of the analyst. These relational and interactional views are criticized because (1) they ignore the fact that transference and resistance analysis have from Freud onward been accepted as minimal criteria qualifying a clinical process as psychoanalytic; (2) elective self-disclosure carries metapsychological implications dismissing not only Freud's theory of motivation but motivation as a basic feature of human personality; (3) they do not recognize interpersonal relations as mental events and so do not consider the ego's ability to create intrapsychic representations of object relations; (4) elective self-disclosures within the empathic parameters of the analytic situation are themselves unreal compared to the reality of the patient's experience with other objects. Abstinence and neutrality as ideals facilitate maintenance of an internal holding environment or container for the analyst's countertransference.     

Countertransference enactments informed by cancer in an analyst's child

The author's son was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma in the spring of 1997. She traces the impact of this trauma on her practice, with specific emphasis on her experience as both analyst and mother, and on the related countertransference feelings and enactments. The paper discusses in detail the analyst's effort to determine for each patient whether or not to disclose the fact of her son's illness, the internal conflict she experienced over those decisions, and the effects of her decisions on her patients. An extensive case discussion focuses on a patient who appeared to intuit in a dramatic fashion the traumatic events in the analyst's private life.     

This art of psychoanalysis

It is the art of psychoanalysis in the making, a process inventing itself as it goes, that is the subject of this paper. The author articulates succinctly how he conceives of psychoanalysis, and offers a detailed clinical illustration. He suggests that each analysand unconsciously (and ambivalently) is seeking help in dreaming his 'night terrors' (his undreamt and undreamable dreams) and his 'nightmares' (his dreams that are interrupted when the pain of the emotional experience being dreamt exceeds his capacity for dreaming). Undreamable dreams are understood as manifestations of psychotic and psychically foreclosed aspects of the personality; interrupted dreams are viewed as reflections of neurotic and other non-psychotic parts of the personality. The analyst's task is to generate conditions that may allow the analysand-with the analyst's participation-to dream the patient's previously undreamable and interrupted dreams. A significant part of the analyst's participation in the patient's dreaming takes the form of the analyst's reverie experience. In the course of this conjoint work of dreaming in the analytic setting, the analyst may get to know the analysand sufficiently well for the analyst to be able to say something that is true to what is occurring at an unconscious level in the analytic relationship. The analyst's use of language contributes significantly to the possibility that the patient will be able to make use of what the analyst has said for purposes of dreaming his own experience, thereby dreaming himself more fully into existence.     

The unreachable object? Difficulties and paradoxes in the analytical relationship with borderline patients

The author investigates the main difficulties the analyst encounters in borderline patient analysis, focusing on the specific way in which such patients put the analyst's mental functioning to the test and highlighting the most salient elements of the transference-countertransference dynamic. The author picks out several of the paradoxes that characterize the analytical relationship with these patients, who are constantly seeking contact with the object, which is inevitably traumatic for them. On the basis of highly detailed clinical material, the author demonstrates how - no matter which theoretical-clinical model is adopted - a specific technical problem with these patients is how to manage their intense destructiveness. With these patients, countertransferential difficulties are inevitably predominant because of the looming threat of the destruction of the analytical relationship. Maintaining a balance between the recognition-legitimization of primary narcissistic mirroring needs and the recognition-control of narcissistic demands and attacks on the analytical link is as crucial as it is complex. The paper examines the most important therapeutic and anti-therapeutic factors, highlighting the importance of countertransference analysis and self-analysis as ways of accessing as yet unrepresented elements of the patient and analyst respectively. Particular attention is given to the role played by the analyst's subjectivity and to the enactment.