The analyst's countertransference to the psychoanalytic process1

There is countertransference, not just to individual patients, but to the process of psychoanalysis itself. The analytic process is a contentious topic. Disagreements about its nature can arise from taking it as a unitary concept that should have a single defi nition whereas, in fact, there are several strands to its meaning. The need for the analyst's free associative listening, as a counterpart to the patient's free associations, implies resistance to the analytic process in the analyst as well as the patient. The author gives examples of the self‐analysis that this necessitates. The most important happenings in both the analyst's and the patient's internal worlds lie at the boundary between conscious and unconscious, and the nature of an analyst's interventions depends on how fully what happens at that boundary is articulated in the analyst's consciousness. The therapeutic quality of an analyst's engagement with a patient depends on the freeing and enlivening quality, for the analyst, of the analyst's engagement with his or her countertransference to the analytic process.     

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 analyst's body as tuning fork: embodied resonance in countertransference

Abstract: This paper examines the phenomenon of embodied countertransference: where the analyst experiences a somatic reaction rather than the more common countertransference responses of thoughts, feelings, images, fantasies and dreams. Discussion of clinical material considers neurotic and syntonic aspects. The analogy is made of resonance with a tuning fork. Several questions are posed: Why does countertransference resonate in the bodies of some analysts but not all? Why do those analysts who are sensitive to this, experience it with some patients but not with others? And what are the conditions which are conducive to producing somatic responses? It proposes that somatic reactions are more likely to occur when a number of conditions come together: when working with patients exhibiting borderline, psychotic or severe narcissistic elements; where there has been early severe childhood trauma; and where there is fear of expressing strong emotions directly. In addition another theoretical factor is proposed, namely the typology of the analyst.     

The pursuit of self-interest: self-interest bias in attitude judgment and persuasion

Self-interest affected the direction of attitudes in 4 studies exploring attitude judgment and persuasion. Experiment 1 showed that both self-interest and symbolic concerns predicted attitudes. The biasing role of self-interest in producing the well-known persuasion effects of personal relevance and argument strength was examined by disentangling the competing effects of personal costs and benefits. Experiment 2 used a standard personal relevance manipulation in the absence of supportive arguments and showed that perceptions of personal costs associated with the advocated policy partially mediated its negative effects on attitudes. Experiments 3 and 4 independently manipulated the onset of personal costs associated with an issue and the onset of issue-related benefits conveyed by supportive arguments. Postmessage attitudes were an additive function of personal costs and argument-specified benefits, and perceived costs and benefits biased information processing in a self-interested manner. A revised conception of personal relevance and argument strength is discussed.     

The analyst's words

Evidence of the analyst's inner processing and self-analysis is built into his choice and use of words. The dyadic context in which he speaks and the internal formation of his words are examined and considered for their implications for the analytic process.     

The analyst's space

The space the analyst creates in his consulting room gives expression to the most primitive elements in his personality. It does this despite, and even by means of, the professional conventions it incorporates. This phenomenon is first apparent in Freud's office where the space of the psychoanalytic situation originated. Here the room itself--filled with the antiquities he collected so passionately--met important narcissistic/symbiotic needs. In this sense it encodes a very early, unanalyzed level of relationship with his mother. It is suggested here that these phenomena, visible in Freud's office, are continuing elements of the analytic frame. Because of the character of the analyst and the structure of the relationship, the room becomes a mise-en-scène in which the narcissistic/symbiotic layers of both participants' characters are played out. Failing to recognize this may lead the analyst to treat seemingly regressive behavior as resistance and to intervene at developmental levels the patients has not achieved. Indeed, such "regressions" can only be understood as products of the situation itself. Phenomenologically, the analyst has become the corner in which he took refuge as a child; the corner to which the patient now comes for sanctuary. Because this connection is unconscious it cannot be called an alliance. Rather, it is a fortuitous interlocking that--like mother-child symbiosis--constitutes a matrix for new growth.     

The analyst's insights

The patient's fresh perceptions of himself come through mutative work shared with the analyst in the focused intimacy of their interaction. In finding transferential expectancies realized, the patient can experience these as yet different, providing he has the analyst's optimal participation. In this concurrence of crucial differences he can discount and discard the old perceptions that had shaped his psychic reality, and build out of them fresh insights. The analyst's regressive lapses in his best work are a liability inherent in the compromise formations comprising his work ego, built as it is out of the needs and motives of his own transferential past. The stagnation and tensions his regressive transferences contribute to the analytic work produce vivid actualization of the intrapsychic conflicts of both, now intertwined and mutually reinforcing. The analyst's self-analysis at such times can lead to resolving insights about himself that redress the impasse and restore the analytic work both must do.     

The quality of the analyst's attention

Compiled and edited from lectures on psychoanalytic technique given by the late Karen Horney at the American Institute for Psychoanalysis during the years 1946, 1950, 1951, and 1952. Further lectures in this series will appear in subsequent issues of the Journal.     

The norm of self-interest

The self-interest motive is singularly powerful according to many of the most influential theories of human behavior and the layperson alike. In the present article the author examines the role the assumption of self-interest plays in its own confirmation. It is proposed that a norm exists in Western cultures that specifies self-interest both is and ought to be a powerful determinant of behavior. This norm influences people's actions and opinions as well as the accounts they give for their actions and opinions. In particular, it leads people to act and speak as though they care more about their material self-interest than they do. Consequences of misinterpreting the "fact" of self-interest are discussed.     

The analyst's participation: a new look

Over the past fifteen years or so, advocates of a relational theory of psychoanalytic process have developed a compelling challenge to the classical approach to clinical work. Their critique of a fixed "standard technique," applicable across the board to all analyzable patients, has been particularly effective. The new approach opens the possibility of tailoring technique to individual analysands, negotiating the best way of working within each unique analytic dyad. But despite the openness of relational theory, many of the most influential clinical vignettes in the recent literature emphasize the analyst's risk-taking, engaging patients in a highly personal way that breaks the traditional analytic frame. Various implications of the tendency of relational analysts to emphasize this sort of intervention are discussed, and questions raised about the way this may affect how relational thinking is received.     

The analyst's Rorschach: gateway to opening the dialectical field

The author offers an account of his evolving relationship with the Rorschach test which for over 20 years as a private practice psychologist, he used in his clinical practice with the intent of mining patients’ psyches for useful information about personality organization and functioning . Coinciding with having found himself on the homestretch of analytic training and during a time when he desired clarity on how Rorschach assessment and Jungian analysis could fruitfully merge, there was an unexpected shift in emphasis wherein the Rorschach suddenly became a method for looking at himself as well. This challenge to identify and integrate aspects of self hitherto neglected was found to enrich his clinical practice. An historical perspective on this experience is offered which highlights the enigmatic relationship that existed between Carl Jung and Hermann Rorschach. The proverbial question of ‘What might this be?’ has been asked when administering the Rorschach for nearly a century. From an analytic perspective, the question is more fully and meaningfully asked when the person doing the asking has also been willing to step in, look around, and take notice of what happens.