Countertransference in Conflict: One Client or Two?

The concept of countertransference (CT) reaction has undergone dramatic changes in definition since its inception at the turn of the century. No longer viewed as a hindrance to effective therapeutic interventions, it has become cen-tral to building the therapeutic alliance. However, CT can interfere with the thera-peutic task, and this is especially true in forensic settings in which one must help particularly difficult clients. In these cases, the CT must split into two parts in order for the therapist to be clinically effective. The therapist reacts to the indi-vidual as both an offender who has violated a societal law and as a client who needs help, separating the client from the behavior. Although not recognized ex-plicitly in the forensic literature, the effects of the dual CT underlie investigations of therapist-offender relationships. This article reviews the concept of CT with specific reference to forensic settings and develops the concept of dual CT. Odie et nmo: qucrre id facianz, fortnsse requiris. Nescio, sec1,fieri sentio et a c r ~ ~ c i o c ( I hate and I love: why I do so you may well ask. I do not know, but I feel it happen and am in agony.) (Carmina, Ixxxv. by Catullus) Traditional accounts of countertransfer-ence (CT) have generally considered it a unified concept, a whole unto itself. The recognition that the therapist's CT reac-tion is dynamic and can change as the therapeutic relationship develops has added to its utility. Expanding on this view, it is my thesis that the CT can split into two distinct parts that can (and do) function independently. This schism is not only possible, i t is necessary if th