In this sense, the term includes [[unconscious mind|unconscious]] reactions to a patient that are determined by the psychoanalyst's own life history and unconscious content; it was later expanded to include unconscious hostile and/or erotic feelings toward a patient that interfere with objectivity and limit the therapist's effectivness. For example, a therapist might have a strong desire for a client to get all 'A's' in university because the client reminds her of her children at that stage in life, and the anxieties that the therapist experienced during that time.  Even in its most benign form, such an attitude could lead at best to 'a "countertransference cure"...achieved through compliance and a "false self" suppression of the patient's more difficult feelings'<ref>Patrick Casement, ''On Learning from the Patient'' (London 1990), p. 174</ref>.

In this sense, the term includes [[unconscious mind|unconscious]] reactions to a patient that are determined by the psychoanalyst's own life history and unconscious content; it was later expanded to include unconscious hostile and/or erotic feelings toward a patient that interfere with objectivity and limit the therapist's effectivness. For example, a therapist might have a strong desire for a client to get all 'A's' in university because the client reminds her of her children at that stage in life, and the anxieties that the therapist experienced during that time.  Even in its most benign form, such an attitude could lead at best to 'a "countertransference cure"...achieved through compliance and a "false self" suppression of the patient's more difficult feelings'<ref>Patrick Casement, ''On Learning from the Patient'' (London 1990), p. 174</ref>.

Another example would be a therapist who didn't receive enough attention from her father perceiving her client as being too distant and resenting him for it. In essence, this describes  the [[transference]] of the treater to the patient, which is referred to as the “narrow perspective.”<ref>Gabbard, Glen O. (1999). Countertransference Issues in Psychiatric Treatment. American Psychiatric Press. p. 1</ref>

Another example would be a therapist who didn't receive enough attention from her father perceiving her client as being too distant and resenting him for it. In essence, this describes  the [[transference]] of the treater to the patient, which is referred to as the “narrow perspective.” <ref name="Gabbard">Gabbard, Glen O. (1999). Countertransference Issues in Psychiatric Treatment. American Psychiatric Press. p. 1</ref>

==The Middle Years==

==The Middle Years==

As the twentieth century progressed, however, other, more positive views of countertransference began to emerge, approaching a definition of countertransference as the entire body of feelings that the therapist has toward the patient.  Jung explored the importance of the therapist's reaction to the patient through the image of the wounded physician: 'it is his own hurt that gives the measure of his power to heal'<ref>Jung quoted in Anthony Stevens, ''Jung'' (Oxford 1994) p. 110</ref>.  Heinrich Racker emphasised the threat that 'the repression of countertransference...is prolonged in the mythology of the analytic situation'<ref>Heinrich Racker, ''Transference and Countertransference'' (London 1982) p. 131</ref>.  Paula Heimann highlighted how the 'analyst's countertransference is not only part and parcel of the analytic relationship, but it is the patient's ''creation'', it is part of the patient's personality'<ref>Casement, ''Further learning'' p. 12</ref>.  As a result, 'counter-transference was thus reversed from being an interference to becoming a potential source of vital confirmation'<ref>Robert Hinshelwood and Susan Robinson, ''Introducing Melanie Klein'' (Cambridge 2006) p. 151</ref>.  The change of fortune 'was highly controversial.  Melanie Klein disapproved on the grounds that poorly analyzed psycho-analysts could excuse their own emotional difficulties' thereby; but among her younger followers 'the trend within the Kleinian group was to take seriously the new view of counter-transference'<ref>Hishelwood/Robinson</ref> - [[Hanna Segal]] warning in typically pragmatic fashion however that 'Countertransference can be the best of servants but is the most awful of masters'<ref>David Bell, ''Reason and Passion'' (London 1997) p. 30</ref>.

As the twentieth century progressed, however, other, more positive views of countertransference began to emerge, approaching a definition of countertransference as the entire body of feelings that the therapist has toward the patient.  Jung explored the importance of the therapist's reaction to the patient through the image of the wounded physician: 'it is his own hurt that gives the measure of his power to heal'<ref>Jung quoted in Anthony Stevens, ''Jung'' (Oxford 1994) p. 110</ref>.  Heinrich Racker emphasised the threat that 'the repression of countertransference...is prolonged in the mythology of the analytic situation'<ref>Heinrich Racker, ''Transference and Countertransference'' (London 1982) p. 131</ref>.  Paula Heimann highlighted how the 'analyst's countertransference is not only part and parcel of the analytic relationship, but it is the patient's ''creation'', it is part of the patient's personality'<ref>Casement, ''Further learning'' p. 12</ref>.  As a result, 'counter-transference was thus reversed from being an interference to becoming a potential source of vital confirmation'<ref>Robert Hinshelwood and Susan Robinson, ''Introducing Melanie Klein'' (Cambridge 2006) p. 151</ref>.  The change of fortune 'was highly controversial.  Melanie Klein disapproved on the grounds that poorly analyzed psycho-analysts could excuse their own emotional difficulties' thereby; but among her younger followers 'the trend within the Kleinian group was to take seriously the new view of counter-transference'<ref>Hishelwood/Robinson</ref> - Hanna Segal warning in typically pragmatic fashion however that 'Countertransference can be the best of servants but is the most awful of masters'<ref>David Bell, ''Reason and Passion'' (London 1997) p. 30</ref>.

==The Late Twentieth Century Paradigm==

==The Late Twentieth Century Paradigm==

By the last third of the century, a growing consensus appeared on the importance of 'a distinction between "personal countertransference" (what has to do with the therapist) and "diagnostic response" - that indicates something about the patient...diagnostic countertransference'<ref>Casement, ''Further learning'' p. 8 and p. 165</ref>.  A new belief had come into being that 'countertransference can be of such enormous clinical usefulness....You have to distinguish between what your reactions to the patient are telling you about his psychology and what they are merely expressing about your own'<ref>"Aaron Green", quoted in Janet Malcolm, ''Psychoanalysis: the impossible profession''(London 1988), p. 115</ref>.  Awareness of the distinction between  ' ''neurotic countertransference'' - which...Fordham calls ''illusory countertransfernce'' - the personal countertransference or narrow perspective - '[and] ''countertransference proper'' '<ref>Mario Jacoby, ''The Analytic Encounter'' (Canada 1984) p. 38</ref> had come (despite a wide range of terminological variation) to transcend individual schools. The main exception is that for 'most psychoanalysts who follow Lacan's teaching...counter-transference is not simply one form of resistance, it is ''the'' ultimate resistance of the analyst'<ref>Jean-Michel Quinodoz, ''Reading Freud'' (London 2005) p. 72</ref>.

By the last third of the century, a growing consensus appeared on the importance of 'a distinction between "personal countertransference" (what has to do with the therapist) and "diagnostic response" - that indicates something about the patient...diagnostic countertransference'<ref>Casement, ''Further learning'' p. 8 and p. 165</ref>.  A new belief had come into being that 'countertransference can be of such enormous clinical usefulness....You have to distinguish between what your reactions to the patient are telling you about his psychology and what they are merely expressing about your own'<ref>"Aaron Green", quoted in Janet Malcolm, ''Psychoanalysis: the impossible profession''(London 1988), p. 115</ref>.  Awareness of the distinction between  ' ''neurotic countertransference'' - which...Fordham calls ''illusory countertransfernce'' - the personal countertransference or narrow perspective - '[and] ''countertransference proper'' '<ref>Mario Jacoby, ''The Analytic Encounter'' (Canada 1984) p. 38</ref> had come (despite a wide range of terminological variation) to transcend individual schools. The main exception is that for 'most psychoanalysts who follow Lacan's teaching...counter-transference is not simply one form of resistance, it is ''the'' ultimate resistance of the analyst'<ref>Jean-Michel Quinodoz, ''Reading Freud'' (London 2005) p. 72</ref>.

The contemporary understanding of countertransference is thus generally to regard countertransference as a “jointly created” phenomenon between the treater and the patient. The patient pressures the treater through [[transference]] into playing a role congruent with the patient’s internal world. However, the specific dimensions of that role are colored by treater’s own personality.<ref name="Gabbard"/> Countertransference can be a therapeutic tool when examined by the treater to sort out who is doing what, and the meaning behind those [[interpersonal relationship|interpersonal]] roles (The differentiation of the Object relations theory interpersonal world between self and other).  Nothing in the new understanding alters of course the need for continuing awareness of the dangers in the narrow perspective - of 'serious risks of unresolved countertransference difficulties being acted out within what is meant to be a therapeutic relationship'<ref>Casement, ''Learning''</ref>; but 'from that point on, transference and counter-transference were looked upon as an inseparable couple..."total situation"'<ref>Quinodoz, ''Reading Freud'' p. 71</ref>.

The contemporary understanding of countertransference is thus generally to regard countertransference as a “jointly created” phenomenon between the treater and the patient. The patient pressures the treater through [[transference]] into playing a role congruent with the patient’s internal world. However, the specific dimensions of that role are colored by treater’s own personality.<ref>Gabbard, Glen O. (1999). Countertransference Issues in Psychiatric Treatment. American Psychiatric Press. p. 3</ref> Countertransference can be a therapeutic tool when examined by the treater to sort out who is doing what, and the meaning behind those [[interpersonal relationship|interpersonal]] roles (The differentiation of the Object relations theory interpersonal world between self and other).  Nothing in the new understanding alters of course the need for continuing awareness of the dangers in the narrow perspective - of 'serious risks of unresolved countertransference difficulties being acted out within what is meant to be a therapeutic relationship'<ref>Casement, ''Learning''</ref>; but 'from that point on, transference and counter-transference were looked upon as an inseparable couple..."total situation"'<ref>Quinodoz, ''Reading Freud'' p. 71</ref>.

==Twenty-First Century Developments==

==Twenty-First Century Developments==

Further developments in the current century might be said to be the increased recognition that 'Most countertransference reactions are a blend of the two aspects', personal and diagnostic, which require careful disentanglement in their interaction; and the possibility that nowadays '[[Psychodynamic psychotherapy|psychodynamic counsellors]] use countertransference much more than transference − another interesting shift in perspective over the years'<ref>Michael Jacobs, ''Psychodynamic Counselling in Action''(London 2006), p. 146</ref>.  One explanation of the latter point might be that because 'in object relations therapy...the relationship is so central, "countertransference" reactions are considered key in helping the therapist to understand the transference'<ref>Jan Grant and Jim Crawley, ''Transference and Projection'' (Buckingham 2002), p. 50</ref>, something appearing in 'the post-Kleinian perspective...[as] ''Indivisible transferencecountertransference'' '<ref>James S. Grotstein, ''But at the Same Time and on Another Level'' (London 2009) p. 38</ref>.

Further developments in the current century might be said to be the increased recognition that 'Most countertransference reactions are a blend of the two aspects', personal and diagnostic, which require careful disentanglement in their interaction; and the possibility that nowadays psychodynamic counselors use countertransference much more than transference − another interesting shift in perspective over the years'<ref>Michael Jacobs, ''Psychodynamic Counselling in Action''(London 2006), p. 146</ref>.  One explanation of the latter point might be that because 'in object relations therapy...the relationship is so central, "countertransference" reactions are considered key in helping the therapist to understand the transference'<ref>Jan Grant and Jim Crawley, ''Transference and Projection'' (Buckingham 2002), p. 50</ref>, something appearing in 'the post-Kleinian perspective...[as] ''Indivisible transferencecountertransference'' '<ref>James S. Grotstein, ''But at the Same Time and on Another Level'' (London 2009) p. 38</ref>.

Perhaps the extreme development of the new view is 'what is known as "counter-transference self-disclosure": the analyst reveals...to the patient what he or she is feeling, so as to highlight the difference between the analyst's experience and that of the patient...In [one] opinion, this implies an entirely different view of what communication between patient and analyst is all about'<ref>Quinodoz, ''Reading Freud'' p. 72</ref> - the classical late-twentieth century view being that it is 'not a matter of confessing to the countertransference but of recognising it and integrating it into the interpretation'<ref>Etchegoyen, ''Fundamentals'' p. 299</ref>.

Perhaps the extreme development of the new view is 'what is known as "counter-transference self-disclosure": the analyst reveals...to the patient what he or she is feeling, so as to highlight the difference between the analyst's experience and that of the patient...In [one] opinion, this implies an entirely different view of what communication between patient and analyst is all about'<ref>Quinodoz, ''Reading Freud'' p. 72</ref> - the classical late-twentieth century view being that it is 'not a matter of confessing to the countertransference but of recognising it and integrating it into the interpretation'<ref>Etchegoyen, ''Fundamentals'' p. 299</ref>.

== Bibliography ==

== Bibliography ==