Touch Countertransference in Group Psychotherapy

The use of touch in psychotherapy: Ethical and clinical guidelines.

“…When touching regresses the client to an earlier stage, it catalyzes the emergence of past unresolved conflicts, provides the means for gratifying unsatisfied needs (Brown, 1979;Casriel, 1972;Durana, 1994Durana, , 1996aDurana, , 1996b, strengthens the client's sense of reality, engages the client in the therapeutic process (Satir, 1972), and enhances the client's awareness of feelings for others (Spotnitz, 1972). Thus a therapist's touch may be a resistant solvent and a facilitator of transference when verbal interaction does not produce the effect sought, thereby forming the basis from which further analytic work may take place.…”

“…According to Mintz (1973), appropriate touch seems to have three important functions: it can convey acceptance and worthiness when the client is overcome by feelings of unworthiness; it can supply symbolic mothering when the patient is not able to communicate; and it can help the patient establish contact with external reality when overcome by anxiety. Kupfemann and Smaldino (1987) along with Spotnitz (1972) believed that not touching may actually serve to build resistance to treatment; for example, clients who have conflicts related to the wish to be close to someone may need to be touched or held in order to be reassured that the therapist will not reproduce the original nonaffectional and distant atmosphere that nourished earlier traumas. Thus the avoidance of touch may recreate the original rejection and strengthen the defenses against expressing feeling, contaminating the transference by its avoidance rather than by its presence (Mintz, 1973).…”

To touch or not to touch.

“…Like any other communication; whether silence or interpretation, whether a laugh or a sigh, touching can be therapeutic, noninfluential, or antitherapeutic, depending on its use. (p. 453) Spotnitz (1972) in the same series of papers refers to two opposing streams of thought which he labels as the "touching taboo" and the "healing touch." The advocates of the latter view it, as O'Hearne does, as a valuable means of communication, or as a generally applicable technique.…”

“…Touching is a simple direct action which can have circuitous meanings and consequent ramifications. Spotnitz (1972) spells out three principles:…”

“…Touch, with its capacity to arouse the deepest infantile cravings, has the power to precipitate severe regression, (p. 457) Spotnitz (1972) goes on to say that despite its dangers touch is essential as a natural human contact. It can have considerable reassurance value.…”