Back to Table of Contents
masochism or of another kind of resistance, such as intense sexual feelings, induced, in turn, by the unconscious material of the analysand. Although Racker insists on the fact that countertransference should not be ‘confessed’, he nevertheless admits that it could be included in the interpretation offered. For instance, by temporarily enacting the role induced by the analysand only to analyse later what has taken place. The analyst must avoid acting out but in certain cases of patients that use the fundamental rule of free association (which favours the use of words) as a resistance to paralyse the influence of interpretation, the analyst’s acting out functions as an interpretation. However, Racker warns that this technique should only be used by highly experienced analysts. Above all, he emphasises the importance of interpretation, focusing on counter- transference neurosis, the core of which is the Oedipus complex (in its positive and negative aspects). He points out that the analyst is an object of impulses, which could distort his perception, but when his neurotic reaction is added to this the capacity to interpret becomes hindered. In addition, neurotic counter-transference in turn has an influence on the analysand’s transference. From the Oedipus complex that becomes involved in counter-transference the analyst transfers his paternal objects onto the analysand and tends to repeat the negative as well as the positive aspects. For instance, rivalries with the analysand’s spouse, jealousy and fantasies of possession might emerge. Racker puts forward these concepts taking into account the training of the analysts. He bases his ideas on the Freud’s (1937) statement in “Analysis Terminable and Interminable”: “[The analysis of the analyst] alone would not suffice for his instruction; but we reckon on the stimuli that he has received in his own analysis not ceasing when it ends and on the processes of remodelling the ego continuing spontaneously in the analysed subject and making use of all subsequent experiences in this newly-acquired sense. This does in fact happen, and in so far as it happens it makes the analysed subject qualified to be an analyst himself” (Freud, 1937, pp. 248-249; clarifying brackets are specific to this publication). He also points out that being unable to ‘let go’ of the patient as well as the unwillingness to cure him, or the sexual envy that could push the analyst into acting out, all constitute dangers that risk the evolution of the analysand. He stresses that only by knowing his ‘personal equation’ will the analyst succeed in lessening the danger of inducing, or ‘grafting’ (as he puts it) his own neurosis into the patient. A myth of the analytic situation is the analyst without anxiety and without anger which, according to Racker, corresponds to the ideals typical of the obsessional neurosis which could lead to mental block and repression. In contrast, true objectivity means that the analyst includes his own subjectivity or counter-transference as constant objects of observation and analysis. Racker describes the concordant identifications of the analyst with the analysand: his Id with the analysand’s Id, his Ego with that of the analysand, and the same case with the superego. However, he distinguishes these from complementary identifications that are connected to the analysand’s objects. For instance, the analyst’s disposition towards empathy, which in turn is originated in sublimated counter-transference, allows concordant
1086
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online