Carl Remick wrote:
>> No, I'm not talking about psychologists' "techniques for increasing
>> empathy
>
>in children." I'm talking about empathy between *psychotherapists* and their
>patients. In fact, therapists are specifically warned against developing
>full-fledged peer relationships with their patients, are they not? Isn't
>"countertransference" the ultimate psychotherapeutic no-no? The whole basis
>for the therapist-patient relationship is not one of peer empathy but one of
>inequality and clinical detachment -- i.e., "Me, high-and-mighty medical
>expert; you, lowly neurotic."
>
No, that would be very bad psychotherapy.
There is a middle ground between friendship and clinical detachement. It is in that middle ground of self-less attention that therapy takes place. Of course there is love between therapist and patient, but there is no attachment. This being so difficult, it is not where therapy begins but where it ends.
The patient's blind attachment to the therapist is called transference. The therapist's blind attachment to the patient is called countertransference.
The patient and the therapist need to become aware and work through these attachments for the therapy to succeed. The analytic hour is the crucible within which the alchemy of relationship is experienced and understood. The patient is healed not when he becomes able to avoid mistakes in relationships, but when he is able to make new mistakes....
Needless to say, it takes a very good psychotherapist to recognize and work through countertransference, which allows the patient to experience a truly nurturing relationship.
Joanna