Notes on countertransference

wo CONTRASTING approaches in regard to the concept of counter-transference could be described. Let us call the first approach T the “classical ” one, and define its concept of countertransfer-ence as the unconscious reaction of the psychoanalyst to the pa-tient’s transference. This approach stays close to the use of the term as first proposed by Freud (8) and to his recommendation that the analyst overcome his countertransference (9). This ap-proach also tends to view neurotic conflicts of the analyst as the main origin of the countertransference. Let us call the second approach the “totalistic ” one; here countertransference is viewed as the total emotional reaction of the psychoanalyst to the patient in the treatment situation. This school of thought believes that the analyst’s conscious and uncon-scious reactions to the patient in the treatment situation are reac-tions to the patient’s reality as well as to his transference, and also to the analyst’s own reality needs as well as to his neurotic needs. This second approach also implies that these emotional reactions of the analyst are intimately fused, and that although counter-transference should certainly be resolved, it is useful in gaining more understanding of the patient. In short, this approach uses a broader definition of countertransference and advocates a more active technical use of it. Some radical proponents of this approac