The analyst’s countertransference to the psychoanalytic process

Abstract

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 definition 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.

A grounded theory exploration of therapists’ experiences of somatic phenomena in the countertransference

“…This is consistent with the writings of Samuels (1985), Stone (2006), Meekums (2007) and Vulcan's (2009) literature review that posit that the incorporation of the somatic countertransference in therapeutic work functions as a tool for the understanding and management of the dynamics in the therapeutic relationship. Interestingly, our data indicate that some somatic phenomena in the therapist may also occur as a result of transference to the client, in which case they may impact on the therapeutic dyad negatively, a position that concurs with the original Freudian view of countertransference as an inhibitory concept (McLaughlin, 1981;Parsons, 2006).…”

Clinical theory at the border(s): Emerging and unintended crossings in the development of clinical theory

“…Many other examples of clinical contributions with broad appeal to a variety of analysts have emerged in recent years from a variety of places. Parsons's () discussion of the analyst's countertransference to the analytic process is a particularly useful version of this phenomenon. Once again, Parsons's paper is embedded within his unique clinical sensibility but there is a kind of unwitting reach toward analysts of all persuasions to consider our own feelings toward psychoanalysis as an object.…”

The analyst's anxieties in the first interview: Barriers against analytic presence

“…Michael Parsons () describes what he calls the analyst's countertransference to the analytic process, which he sees as different although not separable from the countertransference to the specific patient. He understands the countertransference to the analytic process as connected to the analyst's “deep personal motivations” to becoming an analyst, and to the fact that the nature of analytic work continues to “arouse powerful inward responses in all analysts throughout their careers” ( ibid ., p. 1183).…”