There are a lot of misconceptions and misrepresentations about working with countertransference in this video. I don't know whether it is intentional or unintentional but it does have somewhat of a straw man effect. Analysts who do work with countertransference do not generally immediately use/react to whatever kind of feeling they get with a patient. They experience it, register it, keep it in the back of their minds, and think about what it means. Over time, you get to know your patient, their patterns, what they struggle with, and you begin to understand how your countertransference does indeed fit with the story of this patient. Or you realise that actually this is purely your own issue - although 9 out of 10 times you actually tend to know what your own issues are, but yes, it's of course possible something is stirred that hasn't been stirred before in you. Continuing to the second point then: countertransference actually has nothing to do with imagining what it's like to be in someone else's shoes / being empathic. Countertransference is your own, idiosyncratic, reaction to a patient, that you can understand because you know yourself decently enough (and can discuss your feelings with a supervisor), and know in what way this feeling relates to the patient and not to you yourself. Thirdly, I am quite opposed to the overemphasis on language, or at least verbal language. As has been mentioned by @Alexandre Marseille in another comment, the importance of the right brain processes, especially in what is unconscious, are now becoming quite clear. I am not promoting an anti-Lacanian stance, and I am not promoting an intersubjectivity/relational stance. I think what we need to do is to remain open, curious about other ways of looking at issues, and try to figure out how we can use different ideas even when they seem opposing. Especially, I'd argue for clarity on concepts and not setting up straw men, though.
Thank you for your comment and I definitely agree, with more subscribers, patrons and contributors we would be able to create more quality content that would engage these pressing topics deeply (even in seminar format) and not be limited to rudimentary introductions. As you have probably seen in our videos, there are indeed many approaches to the notion of countertransference in psychoanalytic literature. The one presented here is a Lacanian one, developed in great detail in Lacan's paper "The Direction of the Treatment and the Principles of its Power". There are two major problematics raised in the segment of the video you are referring to. One has to do with the assumption that an analyst-through training analysis-is bestowed upon with access to his or her unconscious and in this sense (9 out of 10 times) is able to know what is his or her issue and what is the analysand's issue. The second has to do with the assumption that an analyst's registered feelings can assimilate an analysand's feelings and, even more so, the analysand's unconscious. These problematics might be a great topic to engage in depth in future videos!
Not to mention that, in certain cases, the analyst's analysis of his own countertransference can give rise to valuable insight about the patient. This is especially true for the so called borderline patients-whose unconscious pattern is precisely to make YOU feel a certain way. Kleinians call this projective identification.
"Especially, I'd argue for clarity on concepts and not setting up straw men, though:" Why don't you then just speak of "my/the analyst's feelings/emotional reaction" instead of "countertransference"? My main problem with the concept is the word. Why using a word that suggests that there is happening something unique that does not happen anywhere else instead of using a clear cut concept? You react in a specific emotional way and you develop an interpretation based on this observation. Ok fair enough, it can be incorrect, it can be correct, I will be always open for discussion. But I don't see the reason to give it a name that mystifies it. Besides: I can never know for sure what the reason for a specific emotional reaction is, it is simply impossible. To claim that I can would mean to claim that I have a next to full understanding about my unconscious and my inner body.
There is a difference between therapeutic c/trans which is a source of information projected from the patient, and the personal countertransference of the therapist which needs to be contained in their own personal analysis and which the supervisor helps to notice and bracket. It’s quite partisan (anti-Kleinian) to imply that c/trans should not be used by therapists. For people with intellectual disabilities and psychotic symptoms, and personality disorders, the primary means of communication is the transference relationship. Lacan can be followed, but his theories have not been confirmed empirically and this is therefore an orientation that is not necessarily superior to Heimann’s method that developed out of Klein’s ideas. Many transference processes are also pre-symbolic and made up of part-object relating. I defy any therapist who is not heavily intellectualising to find this information from deeply disturbed patients can be “set aside”.
Hi Allan, thanks for your comment. You are probably referring to the notion of "projective identification", which was indeed invented by Klein. First of all, heads up! We are going to post a video on the subject in the following weeks, it would be lovely if you could comment on it when it is out. Otherwise, notice that Klein-more than anyone else and, in this sense, also Bion-had never argued that, in projective identification, wishes or urges are actually transferred into the mother's psyche from the child. It is only interior to the psyche of the child that the mother is associated with them. You were very correct on noting that the use of projective identification normally disappears after working through the “depressive position” in the second half of the first year of the life of an infant. And, in this sense, it is relevant mostly for psychotic adults and not neurotic adults.
Berlin Psychoanalytic interesting. Okay, it’s mysticism to consider that something is magically transferred from one person’s psyche to another, yet in terms of attunement and receptiveness in the analyst, the level of projection and denial involved in projective identification on the one hand, and the receptiveness of the therapist on the other, lead to the uncanny sense of the actual ‘giving’ of emotion, akin to a kind of ‘pass the parcel’ effect. This is an incredible gift on the one hand but as you imply, requires great care not to be confused with one’s own transference distortions that can never be fully absolved in the personal therapy or supervision of the analyst. The key point is whether it is valid or invalid to interpret this process, as opposed to interpretation of ‘mere’ content. In practice, I find that only the increased consciousness of the process in the patient causes a pausing in destructive acting out, although admittedly more of my patients have personality disorders and cognitive limitations and are dealing with more than neurosis; the history taking brings up multiple forms of childhood adversity in almost every case. Klein & Bion’s patients were often much more disconnected from reality than analysts in private practices, even Freud, and I have found that in these cases, an internal noting of cointertransference feelings is not sufficient, though is certainly preferable to my pre-training ignorance. Could I also take this opportunity to thank you for your excellent and absorbing videos. They could extremely helpful for our trainee psychologists and I wonder if you’d be okay with their use within UK NHS training courses in clinical psychology as teaching aids.
Whether or not one agrees with the efficacy of this method of therapeutic analysis, I found this video to be a fantastic and easy to understand explanation of Lacan's imaginary and symbolic registers. Thank you very much!
Very much against the grain in regards to most recent psychoanalytic (psychodynamic therapy, intersubjectivity) and neuroscientific (i.e. how it is precisely the empathetic process represented by the activation of mirror neurons between client and therapist which account for much of growth) knowledge. Nonetheless interesting and potent for thought.
I may respect the idea that theoretically one doesn't need to express every aspect of what one feels when doing analysis, but Lacanians really go to the other end and describe analysis in a closed vacuum; the unconscious immersion of oneself is not decided by oneself. And not believing that countertransference or enactments shape treatment (for better or worse), I just...wow.
Hi this is Leon. Thanks for your comment! I do not think Lacan argued that there is no countertransference in the clinic, on the contrary, he was very careful in noting that analysts cannot exist in a closed vacuums and decide as to their unconscious immersion. This is exactly the reason why he recommended that countertransference will not be used as an analytic tool but, in the best of cases, provide viable material for the analysis of the analyst him or herself.
I feel like this person does not fully understand what analysts do with transference. The nostril eye example was very weird. His air of knowing is comical. Is it satire?
Lacans abstractions and extrapolations move into an area of over Intellectualised Discourse that I have never been really able to translate into clinical work. I do t think you can use CT to direct therapy but neither should you disregard your own feelings about a client. If you rely only on your rationality or intellect you can miss important information. Even in his description of the imaginary client he starts describing feelings. It is inescapable and somehow delusional to think you can rise above this. For me there is something a bit misguided in saying the analyst can ‘ absent ‘ themselves into a ‘ big other ‘ ( which is what exactly ?) . I Dont think this is possible and could lead to analysts acting in an elevated manner towards clients . I’m also not sure about isolating someone’s words and idioms as people use language to convey meaning and there is a common lexicon of what that meaning is. Focussing on the language in this deconstructionist way feels like clever semantic words games. People come to therapy to resolve real problems in their lives and not to engage in word games or for intellectual discourse no matter how interesting that might be. To be honest I think lacanian therapy is for therapists that don’t really like people.
This is over my head; I'm more in favor of using transference and countertransference in line with Winnicott and the object relations school but it was a fascinating presentation of Lacan's thought. I am impressed with the range that Berlin Psychoanalytic thinking encompasses. Evidently the Atlantic is more than an ocean and New York Psychoanalytic is a full light year away from it
When one works with an Analyst, it is assumed that the Analyst has completed his/her training analysis and is being supervised. The Analyst I encountered was attempting to resolve his unfinished analysis; his Countertranference resulted in an Emotional Breakdown that did nothing but give me 20 years of living through hell. Future Analysands would be wise to verify through their state that the Analyst they intend to work with is BOARD CERTIFIED by the Analytic Institute that trained him/her.
I think that when you're ready to begin your argument with something other than the most inane analogy, then I'll be ready to take your argument seriously. Until then… utter poppycock.
There are a lot of misconceptions and misrepresentations about working with countertransference in this video. I don't know whether it is intentional or unintentional but it does have somewhat of a straw man effect. Analysts who do work with countertransference do not generally immediately use/react to whatever kind of feeling they get with a patient. They experience it, register it, keep it in the back of their minds, and think about what it means. Over time, you get to know your patient, their patterns, what they struggle with, and you begin to understand how your countertransference does indeed fit with the story of this patient. Or you realise that actually this is purely your own issue - although 9 out of 10 times you actually tend to know what your own issues are, but yes, it's of course possible something is stirred that hasn't been stirred before in you. Continuing to the second point then: countertransference actually has nothing to do with imagining what it's like to be in someone else's shoes / being empathic. Countertransference is your own, idiosyncratic, reaction to a patient, that you can understand because you know yourself decently enough (and can discuss your feelings with a supervisor), and know in what way this feeling relates to the patient and not to you yourself. Thirdly, I am quite opposed to the overemphasis on language, or at least verbal language. As has been mentioned by @Alexandre Marseille in another comment, the importance of the right brain processes, especially in what is unconscious, are now becoming quite clear. I am not promoting an anti-Lacanian stance, and I am not promoting an intersubjectivity/relational stance. I think what we need to do is to remain open, curious about other ways of looking at issues, and try to figure out how we can use different ideas even when they seem opposing. Especially, I'd argue for clarity on concepts and not setting up straw men, though.
could not agree more...
Thank you for your comment and I definitely agree, with more subscribers, patrons and contributors we would be able to create more quality content that would engage these pressing topics deeply (even in seminar format) and not be limited to rudimentary introductions. As you have probably seen in our videos, there are indeed many approaches to the notion of countertransference in psychoanalytic literature. The one presented here is a Lacanian one, developed in great detail in Lacan's paper "The Direction of the Treatment and the Principles of its Power". There are two major problematics raised in the segment of the video you are referring to. One has to do with the assumption that an analyst-through training analysis-is bestowed upon with access to his or her unconscious and in this sense (9 out of 10 times) is able to know what is his or her issue and what is the analysand's issue. The second has to do with the assumption that an analyst's registered feelings can assimilate an analysand's feelings and, even more so, the analysand's unconscious. These problematics might be a great topic to engage in depth in future videos!
Absolutely agree with you.
Not to mention that, in certain cases, the analyst's analysis of his own countertransference can give rise to valuable insight about the patient.
This is especially true for the so called borderline patients-whose unconscious pattern is precisely to make YOU feel a certain way. Kleinians call this projective identification.
"Especially, I'd argue for clarity on concepts and not setting up straw men, though:"
Why don't you then just speak of "my/the analyst's feelings/emotional reaction" instead of "countertransference"? My main problem with the concept is the word. Why using a word that suggests that there is happening something unique that does not happen anywhere else instead of using a clear cut concept? You react in a specific emotional way and you develop an interpretation based on this observation. Ok fair enough, it can be incorrect, it can be correct, I will be always open for discussion. But I don't see the reason to give it a name that mystifies it. Besides: I can never know for sure what the reason for a specific emotional reaction is, it is simply impossible. To claim that I can would mean to claim that I have a next to full understanding about my unconscious and my inner body.
There is a difference between therapeutic c/trans which is a source of information projected from the patient, and the personal countertransference of the therapist which needs to be contained in their own personal analysis and which the supervisor helps to notice and bracket. It’s quite partisan (anti-Kleinian) to imply that c/trans should not be used by therapists. For people with intellectual disabilities and psychotic symptoms, and personality disorders, the primary means of communication is the transference relationship. Lacan can be followed, but his theories have not been confirmed empirically and this is therefore an orientation that is not necessarily superior to Heimann’s method that developed out of Klein’s ideas. Many transference processes are also pre-symbolic and made up of part-object relating. I defy any therapist who is not heavily intellectualising to find this information from deeply disturbed patients can be “set aside”.
Hi Allan, thanks for your comment. You are probably referring to the notion of "projective identification", which was indeed invented by Klein. First of all, heads up! We are going to post a video on the subject in the following weeks, it would be lovely if you could comment on it when it is out. Otherwise, notice that Klein-more than anyone else and, in this sense, also Bion-had never argued that, in projective identification, wishes or urges are actually transferred into the mother's psyche from the child. It is only interior to the psyche of the child that the mother is associated with them. You were very correct on noting that the use of projective identification normally disappears after working through the “depressive position” in the second half of the first year of the life of an infant. And, in this sense, it is relevant mostly for psychotic adults and not neurotic adults.
Berlin Psychoanalytic interesting. Okay, it’s mysticism to consider that something is magically transferred from one person’s psyche to another, yet in terms of attunement and receptiveness in the analyst, the level of projection and denial involved in projective identification on the one hand, and the receptiveness of the therapist on the other, lead to the uncanny sense of the actual ‘giving’ of emotion, akin to a kind of ‘pass the parcel’ effect. This is an incredible gift on the one hand but as you imply, requires great care not to be confused with one’s own transference distortions that can never be fully absolved in the personal therapy or supervision of the analyst. The key point is whether it is valid or invalid to interpret this process, as opposed to interpretation of ‘mere’ content. In practice, I find that only the increased consciousness of the process in the patient causes a pausing in destructive acting out, although admittedly more of my patients have personality disorders and cognitive limitations and are dealing with more than neurosis; the history taking brings up multiple forms of childhood adversity in almost every case. Klein & Bion’s patients were often much more disconnected from reality than analysts in private practices, even Freud, and I have found that in these cases, an internal noting of cointertransference feelings is not sufficient, though is certainly preferable to my pre-training ignorance.
Could I also take this opportunity to thank you for your excellent and absorbing videos. They could extremely helpful for our trainee psychologists and I wonder if you’d be okay with their use within UK NHS training courses in clinical psychology as teaching aids.
I couldn’t help but laugh at 8:59 when he said “out of the blue” when talking about birds
What a title! I'll be sure to watch when I get home.
Whether or not one agrees with the efficacy of this method of therapeutic analysis, I found this video to be a fantastic and easy to understand explanation of Lacan's imaginary and symbolic registers. Thank you very much!
Imagine a world in which UA-cam comment posters read the people they post about; perhaps they could actually formulate a worthwhile critique.
yes some are just here as a short cut to actual reading of primary text
Very much against the grain in regards to most recent psychoanalytic (psychodynamic therapy, intersubjectivity) and neuroscientific (i.e. how it is precisely the empathetic process represented by the activation of mirror neurons between client and therapist which account for much of growth) knowledge. Nonetheless interesting and potent for thought.
Thank you. It would be interesting to arrange a discussion on the topic of these developments in a future video!
It's so funny how he says that in the beginning, I wasn't aware of it either 😂
I may respect the idea that theoretically one doesn't need to express every aspect of what one feels when doing analysis, but Lacanians really go to the other end and describe analysis in a closed vacuum; the unconscious immersion of oneself is not decided by oneself. And not believing that countertransference or enactments shape treatment (for better or worse), I just...wow.
Hi this is Leon. Thanks for your comment! I do not think Lacan argued that there is no countertransference in the clinic, on the contrary, he was very careful in noting that analysts cannot exist in a closed vacuums and decide as to their unconscious immersion. This is exactly the reason why he recommended that countertransference will not be used as an analytic tool but, in the best of cases, provide viable material for the analysis of the analyst him or herself.
I feel like this person does not fully understand what analysts do with transference. The nostril eye example was very weird. His air of knowing is comical. Is it satire?
Swap nostril and eye with anything else the analysand presents.
Lacans abstractions and extrapolations move into an area of over Intellectualised
Discourse that I have never been really able to translate into clinical work. I do t think you can use CT to direct therapy but neither should you disregard your own feelings about a client. If you rely only on your rationality or intellect you can miss important information. Even in his description of the imaginary client he starts describing feelings. It is inescapable and somehow delusional to think you can rise above this. For me there is something a bit misguided in saying the analyst can ‘ absent ‘ themselves into a ‘ big other ‘ ( which is what exactly ?) . I Dont think this is possible and could lead to analysts acting in an elevated manner towards clients . I’m also not sure about isolating someone’s words and idioms as people use language to convey meaning and there is a common lexicon of what that meaning is. Focussing on the language in this deconstructionist way feels like clever semantic words games. People come to therapy to resolve real problems in their lives and not to engage in word games or for intellectual discourse no matter how interesting that might be. To be honest I think lacanian therapy is for therapists that don’t really like people.
The last sentence is not just provocative but really thought provoking! Thanks for sharing your perspective.
This is over my head; I'm more in favor of using transference and countertransference in line with Winnicott and the object relations school but it was a fascinating presentation of Lacan's thought. I am impressed with the range that Berlin Psychoanalytic thinking encompasses. Evidently the Atlantic is more than an ocean and New York Psychoanalytic is a full light year away from it
Thus is why this model of therapy does not work, and is not used anymore.
I'm selling on that
i love this chnnel man !! pleas keep posting one day ppl will wake up and this will be gold.
Thanks for our support Ghiyath A.S!
Really hard to follow him, he's ideas aren't ordered.
You must not be a therapist. Have some tenacity, its not that hard to order it as you listen
Not getting it. Just like Lacan
Overly simplistic. He is talking about objective versus subjective countertransference.
When one works with an Analyst, it is assumed that the Analyst has completed his/her training analysis and is being supervised. The Analyst I encountered was attempting to resolve his unfinished analysis; his Countertranference resulted in an Emotional Breakdown that did nothing but give me 20 years of living through hell. Future Analysands would be wise to verify through their state that the Analyst they intend to work with is BOARD CERTIFIED by the Analytic Institute that trained him/her.
I think that when you're ready to begin your argument with something other than the most inane analogy, then I'll be ready to take your argument seriously.
Until then… utter poppycock.