Psychoanalysis: The Magic and The Lie - Diary of A Five Day A Week Analysis

Psychoanalysis: The Magic and The Lie

Diary of a Five Day A Week Analysis

by Esther Altshul Helfgott, Ph.D.

home

table of contents

February 1992 - written as a participant in the Northwest Alliance for Psychoanalytic Study's First Instensive Year on Psychoanalytic Theory:

Notes Towards an Understanding of Countertransference While Reading Joseph Sandler's "Countertransference and Role-Responsiveness," Int.Rev.Psycho-Anal.(1976)3,43 *

Let me say emphatically that I am absolutely opposed to the idea that

all countertransference responses of the analyst are due to what the

patient has imposed on him. - Joseph Sandler (p. 46)

I don't think Sandler believes what he thinks he believes, On the one hand, he points out that Paula Heimann was the first to assert "the positive value of countertransference" and that hers was a landmark contribution which showed "that the reaction of the analyst may ...be the first clue to what is going on in the patient." (p. 44) He does not point out that the first reaction of the analyst that gave a "clue to what is going on in the patient" might easily be the action that sets the transference into place. In other words, which comes first the action or the reaction?

Certainly, we have to extend out from Heimann and Sandler to acknowledge that the countertransference, along with the transference, is the key element in the formation of a particular analytic dyad. The analyst's unconscious responses to the patient have already set the patient's transferences in motion. Just as the patient's unconscious responses to the analyst have set the analyst's (counter)transferences in motion.

Sandler is committed to the long-standing notion that the patient forces the analyst into a role. It is the analyst who "is manoeuvred by the patient." It is "[iJn the transference .., [that] the patient attempts to prod the analyst into behaving in a particular way and unconsciously scans and adapts to his perception of the analyst's reaction." (p. 44)

My objection is the assumption that the analysand "imposes" the interactions, that they are not based on mutuality, on the analyst's and analysand's unconscious reactions to each other. You have to have a mutually responsive dyad to play ball.

Sandler's model for conceptualizing the analytic relationship sets the parameters for analytic interpretation. The patient is a child-like figure manipulating the victimized analyst. With such a
weltanschauung the analyst interprets from two contradictory yet often-fused positions: 1) that of a parent and 2) that of a victim. This gives rise to over-reaction or under-reaction on the part of the analyst and the analysand and over-interpretive responses on the part of the analyst.

Sandler's example: A schoolteacher in her twenties began "treatment because of social and sexual difficulties, and after some time it became clear that she was terrified of her penis-envy... " (p.46) Again with the penis-envy. Will there be no peace? Who made this observation/interpretation? Who, if anyone, introduced the term and/or concept of penis-envy into the patient's treatment? Introduction of the concept into the analytic field is, at once, a theoretical and a countertransferential response.

In the case of the woman teacher, Sandler acknowledges some of his countertransferences, but he does not discuss the feelings he and his patient have for one another. And a case is not adequately presented unless this dynamic is accounted for whether the prevailing feeling is love, hate or indifference.

As fascinated as I am by the case-presentations, in and out of the literature, I have been troubled by what often appears to be a third-person objectification of patients. I feel this is due to an absence of discussion around the question of countertransference. For instance, in response to a question regarding a presenter's feelings toward her patient, Rubin Blanck said if therapists felt they had to answer such questions, they'd never present cases. Pity. How much more of the story would be told. And how much less of a chance of obliterating the patient's real self - and the analyst's.

*Originally printed in Memo to Intensive Participants, Karol Marshall, Program Director, 3 unnumbered stapled pages, p. 3, February 21, 1992

Primary Source: History of the Development of Psychoanalysis in Seattle, Washington

Northwest Alliance for Psychoanalytic Study File, author's archives

Sandler

This page was last updated on: July 5, 2005



Psychoanalysis: The Magic and The Lie Diary of a Five Day A Week Analysis by Esther Altshul Helfgott, Ph.D.
			home table of contents


	February 1992 - written as a participant in the Northwest Alliance for Psychoanalytic Study's First Instensive Year on Psychoanalytic Theory: Notes Towards an Understanding of Countertransference While Reading Joseph Sandler's "Countertransference and Role-Responsiveness," Int.Rev.Psycho-Anal.(1976)3,43 * Let me say emphatically that I am absolutely opposed to the idea that all countertransference responses of the analyst are due to what the patient has imposed on him. - Joseph Sandler (p. 46) I don't think Sandler believes what he thinks he believes, On the one hand, he points out that Paula Heimann was the first to assert "the positive value of countertransference" and that hers was a landmark contribution which showed "that the reaction of the analyst may ...be the first clue to what is going on in the patient." (p. 44) He does not point out that the first reaction of the analyst that gave a "clue to what is going on in the patient" might easily be the action that sets the transference into place. In other words, which comes first the action or the reaction? Certainly, we have to extend out from Heimann and Sandler to acknowledge that the countertransference, along with the transference, is the key element in the formation of a particular analytic dyad. The analyst's unconscious responses to the patient have already set the patient's transferences in motion. Just as the patient's unconscious responses to the analyst have set the analyst's (counter)transferences in motion. Sandler is committed to the long-standing notion that the patient forces the analyst into a role. It is the analyst who "is manoeuvred by the patient." It is "[iJn the transference .., [that] the patient attempts to prod the analyst into behaving in a particular way and unconsciously scans and adapts to his perception of the analyst's reaction." (p. 44) My objection is the assumption that the analysand "imposes" the interactions, that they are not based on mutuality, on the analyst's and analysand's unconscious reactions to each other. You have to have a mutually responsive dyad to play ball. Sandler's model for conceptualizing the analytic relationship sets the parameters for analytic interpretation. The patient is a child-like figure manipulating the victimized analyst. With such a weltanschauung the analyst interprets from two contradictory yet often-fused positions: 1) that of a parent and 2) that of a victim. This gives rise to over-reaction or under-reaction on the part of the analyst and the analysand and over-interpretive responses on the part of the analyst. Sandler's example: A schoolteacher in her twenties began "treatment because of social and sexual difficulties, and after some time it became clear that she was terrified of her penis-envy... " (p.46) Again with the penis-envy. Will there be no peace? Who made this observation/interpretation? Who, if anyone, introduced the term and/or concept of penis-envy into the patient's treatment? Introduction of the concept into the analytic field is, at once, a theoretical and a countertransferential response. In the case of the woman teacher, Sandler acknowledges some of his countertransferences, but he does not discuss the feelings he and his patient have for one another. And a case is not adequately presented unless this dynamic is accounted for whether the prevailing feeling is love, hate or indifference. As fascinated as I am by the case-presentations, in and out of the literature, I have been troubled by what often appears to be a third-person objectification of patients. I feel this is due to an absence of discussion around the question of countertransference. For instance, in response to a question regarding a presenter's feelings toward her patient, Rubin Blanck said if therapists felt they had to answer such questions, they'd never present cases. Pity. How much more of the story would be told. And how much less of a chance of obliterating the patient's real self - and the analyst's. copyright1992, 2005Esther Altshul Helfgott *Originally printed in Memo to Intensive Participants, Karol Marshall, Program Director, 3 unnumbered stapled pages, p. 3, February 21, 1992 Primary Source: History of the Development of Psychoanalysis in Seattle, Washington Northwest Alliance for Psychoanalytic Study File, author's archives Sandler



		This page was last updated on: July 5, 2005