Countertransference

Hi guys!

Countertransference is when the patient fills some kind of relationship need in a therapist and T views you subconsciously as a son or lover or something like that.

The orthodox line is that countertransference is wrong and dangerous, and if T cannot shake it off she should refer the patient to someone else.

But is countertransference really so bad? And can it really be avoided?

The therapeutic relationship seems to be to contain a good slice of parent/child from the patient's point of view and surely the T must feel that too.

Countertransference is ongoing and part of the therapy to. It's minimized when a therapist worked through their own transferrences in their own therapy.

The key is for them to be aware of it, to manage it, and to keep it from affecting the work as much as possible. Also to use those feelings to learn about the client.

Not being aware of it and managing it can be very destructive, which is one reason I won't see a therapist who hasn't worked through their own transference.

It's not unavoidable to have the countertransference, it's what they do with it that's critical.

I think countertransference usually refers to feelings stirred in the therapist in response to a client's transference. This can be useful in therapy but the therapist needs to be aware of what is happening and be skilled enough to deal with it therapeutically.
A therapist can also have feelings towards a client which originate in themselves. My therapist told me last year that he felt paternal feelings towards me and these feelings unconsciously contributed to a rupture we had. I called it countertransference and he said he didn't want to use that word because he wanted to be clear the feelings originated in him.
I think any feelings are fine to be honest, so long as the therapist is self-aware and recognises their own stuff. My T's paternal feelings were only problematic when he wasn't aware of the fact they were impacting on his actions; since he's become aware of them he's kept them in check and I imagine on some level I receive those paternal feelings and they contribute to the sense of safety I have in my relationship with him.
So self-awareness in the therapist is key I think.

My t's have all been pretty comfortable with countertransference they only ask that I let them deal with on thier own. If it affects me that is s hard request to abide by.

I hunted down Searles book on Countertransference a few years ago. Its a complicated and fascinating subject. The wikipedia has a good definition of it. CE, what you defined is like just the first old timey definition now. They are up to like 4 layers now.

Of course it all depends on how the t handles his/her ct. When the t is filling a need of their own and can't get that under control quickly, therapy has the potential to go very wrong for the client. Therapist may act on his/her own best interests instead of the clients. Therapist may give special treatment to client. Therapist may become overly invested in client. I think the t's judgment becomes clouded with the ct that fills a need of their own. And that has the potential to cause a lot of harm to the client if down the road the ct dies out.

If you can't solve the problem, change the definition!

(That's what they do with poverty.)

I'm not sure it's the feelings that are the problem. It's that they might motivate actions that could harm the client.

I mean, I suppose it's possible that my T might secretly think of me as the daughter he never had (eww)--and, hey, that's fine, I guess. He can do whatever he likes in the privacy of his own brain.

Still, I'd sort of prefer he didn't. It would make me nervous that he'd lose objectivity, refrain from telling me some difficult truth, or, made uncomfortable by his own emotions, pull away from me. For example.

There's a really good response here that fits your questions CE:

https://forums.psychcentral.com/5459860-post19.html

Most therapists I have interacted with could not even tolerate questions about their method or process. Inquiring into their mental health and the extent to which they have addressed their own personal issues… I'm guessing that rarely happens, and when it does I'm guessing majority of therapists evade the questions, as is their habit.

I bet most of them are pretty delicate emotionally and react to many things. Seems what is considered a "good" therapist is the one who can disguise their natural reactions or suppress them by force, which can't be healthy. And seems the absence of visible or recognizable "countertransference" is taken as evidence of its actual absence. I suspect some of the are doing crazy internal gymnastics to stuff their reactions down. In any case, how can the client possibly know what is happening with the opaque therapist, especially if the client is in distress and not able to carry out a systematic assessment of the therapist's psyche?