Desire and Responsibility: the Ethics of Countertransference Experience

Abstract

The analyst's desire expressed in impactful wishes and intentions is foundational to countertransference experience, yet undertheorized in the literature. The "wider" countertransference view, associated with neo-Kleinian theory, obscures the nature of countertransference and the analyst's contribution to it. A systematic analysis of the logic of desire as an intentional mental state is presented. Racker's (1957) talion law and Lacan's (1992) theory of the dual relation illustrate the problems that obtain with a wholesale embrace of the wider countertransference perspective. The ethical burden placed on the analyst in light of the role played by desire in countertransference is substantial. Lacan's ethics of desire and Benjamin's (2004) concept of the moral third are discussed.

What Hath Freud Wrought? Current Confusion and Controversies About the Clinical Practice of Psychoanalysis and Psychodynamic Psychotherapy

“…This is true even though at times the analyst stumbles over his or her own unacknowledged desire, like encountering an unexpected obstacle on the sidewalk. Wilson (2013) remarks, "When frustrated or anxious…the analyst typically does not ask himself: what is it I am wanting from this patient that I am not getting?" (p. 455).…”

The Presence of The Analyst in Lacanian Treatment

“…Wilson (2013) convincingly demonstrates how certain countertransferential impasses can be traced back to how the analyst’s desire for a particular experience of analytic progress is frustrated. To interpret the stalemate, one must resort to the analyst’s desire, as obviously the analyst’s presence in the consulting room attests his or her desire to engage in the analytic process.…”

Commentary on Laplanche

“…Such an approach disregards the analyst's conscious representation of the countertransference experience as being a manifest content, a compromise formation rather than as a pure expression of the patient's projected mental element. Wilson (2013) speaks directly to the impact of the analyst's desire and the need for recognizing and owning such for unpacking the complex, latent forces woven into the analyst's contributions to the process, including his experience of countertransference. Moreover, as described by Smith (2000), all listening is conflictual and represents the condensation of the analyst's own conflicted compromise formations and those stemming from the patient's mind.…”