Re:regarding transference and countertranference

Hi, and thanks for the interesting topic.

I think the original theory was that transference (which I think of most generally as responding to someone in an unaware way that is conditioned by an earlier relationship) was not a side effect, but an essential part of therapy (?)

It was not 'dealing with' transference that was the point, but 'resolving' it, or that was my impression. That is, the therapist stood in as a surrogate for other significant relationships, so you could work them out in the safety of the therapeutic relationship. Sort of like flying in a simulator rather than taking a plane up in the air.

I think the general principle still applies, that part of the point of therapy is to examine how we feel with a kind of safety net, although I often feel as though the Freudian model is quite archaic for a number of reasons. It carries a lot of baggage with it and some implicit assumptions that simply aren't accurate, like the hydraulic metaphor for human motives and the oedpipal and electra fantasies, and much of the pleasure principle.

One of the best descriptions of the traditional process of therapy I've seen is in Willard Gaylin's "Talk is Not Enough." Gaylin has a wonderful, compassionate, direct way of talking about some very complex and tricky subjects.

If you wanted a complete picture, you'd also have to investigate the critics of therapy, such as Watters and Offshe's devastation of Freud in "Therapy's Delusions," but if you're making progress and happy with the process, it would probably be of little help to learn about why critics are hostile towards it. A process can be very satisfactory even if the theory is incomplete (or even junk).

Odd to think that caring would be 'negative' though I can understand it might be considered threatening under some circumstances, in the same way as some unfortunate people consider hugging "too intimate" because of their own problems with it.

Caring doesn't mean becoming overtly sexual or flying off to Rio together. There are good reasons for boundaries on behavior, but I've never seen a convincing reason to set boundaries on compassion. Unless we're dealing with someone so obsessive that any reciprocation causes them to "stalk" us !

Replies:

Re:regarding transference and countertranference, by greeneyedbgcj@yahoo.com, 10/06/02

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.