This article was downloaded by: [University of New Hampshire]

On: 16 February 2015, At: 19:07

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Contemporary Psychoanalysis
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uucp20

Counteridentification,
Therapeutic Impasse, and
Supervisory Process
Peter Lawner Ph.D.
Published online: 28 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: Peter Lawner Ph.D. (1989) Counteridentification, Therapeutic

Impasse, and Supervisory Process, Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 25:4, 592-607, DOI:
10.1080/00107530.1989.10746322

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00107530.1989.10746322

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
 sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 19:07 16 February 2015
 PETER LAWNER, Ph.D.

Counteridentifícation, Therapeutic
Impasse, and Supervisory Process*
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 19:07 16 February 2015

THIS PAPER EXAMINES COUNTERIDENTIFÍCATION, a process con­

t r i b u t i n g to impasses in psychoanalytic p s y c h o t h e r a p y . I d e f i n e
counteridentification as a n unconscious d y n a m i c w h e r e b y a t h e r a ­
pist colludes with his/her p a t i e n t by b e i n g defensive in a way in
close s t r u c t u r a l r e s e m b l a n c e to t h e defensive m a n n e r t h e p a t i e n t
has a s s u m e d . My d e f i n i t i o n entails two a s p e c t s of t h e p r o c e s s :
" c o u n t e r , " r e f e r r i n g to t h e t h e r a p i s t - a u t h o r e d defensive o r resis­
t a n t activity; a n d "identification," to t h e replication of a psycholog­
ically m e a n i n g f u l constelladon e v i d e n c e d by a n o t h e r .
T h e p r o c e s s o f c o u n t e r t r a n s f e r e n c e in r e c e n t d e c a d e s h a s
g a i n e d a b u n d a n t attention. Counteridentification, in distinction,
has received little. I wish to show in this essay t h a t c o u n t e r i d e n t i f i ­
cation e x e r t s g r e a t i n f l u e n c e in fostering t h e r a p e u t i c stalemates,
a n d t h a t its u n d e r s t a n d i n g p r o m o t e s t h e i r r e s o l u t i o n . I h a v e
studied t h e effects of counteridentification u p o n t h e r a p e u t i c im­
passes in t h e i n d i v i d u a l s u p e r v i s i o n of p s y c h o a n a l y t i c p s y c h o ­
t h e r a p y , a n d i n a s m u c h as I h a v e o b s e r v e d t h e resolution of s u c h
c o n t r e t e m p s m o s t often t h r o u g h s u p e r v i s o r y e x p l o r a t i o n , this
p a p e r is i n t e n d e d , in large p a r t , as a p r o p o s a l c o n c e r n i n g a p r o ­
d u c t i v e focus for psychoanalytic s u p e r v i s i o n . I h a v e f o u n d
f o c u s i n g u p o n t h e c o u n t e r i d e n t i f i c a t o r y genesis of s t a l e m a t e d
t h e r a p i e s to be fruitful across t h e s p e c t r u m from intensive
p s y c h o t h e r a p y with well-integrated individuals to psychoanalyti-
cally-informed work with low functioning p e r s o n s with severe psy­
chiatric histories. I h a v e also o b s e r v e d expressions of t h e process
of counteridentification in g r o u p supervision, a n d h a v e b e c o m e
increasingly a t t u n e d to t h e i n f l u e n c e o f this process in my o w n
psychoanalytic efforts.

* This paper was presented at a panel on supervision at the American Psychological

Association, Division 39 meetings, in San Francisco, February 29, 1988.

592
0010-7530/89 »2.00 + .05
Copyright © 1989 W. A. W. Insütute
20 W. 74th Street, New York, NY 10023
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Contemporary Psychoanalysis, Vol. 25, No. 4 (1989)
 COUNTERIDENTIFICATION AND THERAPEUTIC IMPASSE

Psychoanalytic Supervision
T h e r e is a history of a decisive d i v e r g e n c e with r e g a r d to t h e
p r o p e r m o d e of f u n c t i o n i n g of t h e supervisory situation, traceable
t o d i s a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n a p p r o a c h e s which, d u r i n g t h e 1930's,
c a m e to b e k n o w n as t h e " V i e n n a m o d e l " a n d t h e " B u d a p e s t
m o d e l " ( D o e h r m a n , 1976; Caligor, 1981). T h e " V i e n n a " a p p r o a c h
e s p o u s e d a view of s u p e r v i s i o n as a n i n t e l l e c t u a l l y m e d i a t e d
l e a r n i n g process. T h e " B u d a p e s t " perspective, in contrast, r e p r e ­
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 19:07 16 February 2015

s e n t e d it as a situation in which vivid e x p e r i e n c e s with t h e p o w e r o f

u n c o n s c i o u s processes a r e t h e sine qua non of one's d e v e l o p m e n t as
a n analyst. T h e essentials of this difference persist to this day. At
o n e e n d of t h e s p e c t r u m stand t h o s e p r o p o n e n t s of a didactic a p ­
p r o a c h , w h o counsel t h e p r o m p t r e f e r r a l of s t r o n g , u n c o m p r e -
h e n d e d e m o t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s for e x a m i n a t i o n to o n e ' s t r a i n i n g
analysis, a n d w h o view a d d r e s s i n g t h e s e issues in supervision as
"wild" ( F r e u d , 1910b). T h o s e a t t h e a n t i p o d e view this as n e ­
glectful of a n essential psychic reality of t h e psychoanalytic situa­
t i o n — o n e pivoting u p o n intensely felt, often b u t dimly u n d e r ­
stood t r a n s f e r e n c e - c o u n t e r t r a n s f e r e n c e i n t e r l o c k i n g s — w h i c h r e ­
q u i r e s frank c o n f r o n t a t i o n a n d amplification.'
C o r r e l a t e d with t h e s e c o n t r a s t i n g p o s t u r e s h a s b e e n a classifica­
tion of views ( W a g n e r , 1957) r e g a r d i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p u r v i e w
of supervision of psychoanalytic p s y c h o t h e r a p y t h a t a r e : (a) pa­
t i e n t - o r i e n t e d ; (b) t h e r a p i s t - o r i e n t e d ; o r (c) parallel process-ori­
e n t e d . A traditional, conservative a p p r o a c h enjoins u n d e v i a t i n g
focus u p o n t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of, a n d a p p r o p r i a t e technical i n t e r ­
v e n t i o n with r e g a r d to one's patient's p r o b l e m s a n d c o m m u n i c a ­
tions. T h e therapist's c o u n t e r t r a n s f e r e n c e issues a r e r e g a r d e d as
u n t o w a r d i n t r u s i o n s in t h e process a n d a r e r e f e r r e d back for ex-

' It is of interest to note the parallel between this antithesis of prescriptive view­
points regarding psychoanalytic supervision and an analogous disagreement which
has long characterized the field as to the nature of, and proper analytic attitude
with regard to countertransference (Kernberg, 1965). The more conservative point
of view (Reich, 1951, 1960) asserts the desirability (and of course the possibility) of
the analyst minimizing his countertransference reactions, while the latter (Hei-
mann, 1950; Little, 1951) emphasizes the therapeutic value of the recognition of its
inevitable influential presence and of efforts to capitalize upon its informative po­
tential. Referring to the second of these perspectives LaPlanche and Pontalis (1973,
p. 93) write: "This approach is based on the tenet that resonance 'from unconscious
to unconscious' constitutes the only authentically psychoanalytic form of communi­
cation" (see Epstein and Feiner, 1979).

593
 PETER LAWNER, Ph.D.

p l o r a t i o n a n d r e s o l u d o n to his t r a i n i n g analysis. (It will b e n o t e d

t h a t this m o d e l p r e s u p p o s e s t h e t r a d i t i o n a l , f o r m a l i n s t i t u t e
t r a i n i n g within which a t r a i n i n g analysis is available for h a n d l i n g
"fallout" from c o u n t e r t r a n s f e r e n c e s e m e r g i n g in supervision. T h i s
situation, for b e t t e r o r worse, d o e s n o t apply to a g r e a t deal of t h e
supervision of psychoanalytic p s y c h o t h e r a p y which takes place.)
T h i s t e n d s to b e a didactic m o d e l of supervision.
T h e s e c o n d m o d e l of s u p e r v i s i o n , t h e t h e r a p i s t - o r i e n t e d , is
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 19:07 16 February 2015

based o n t h e principle that o n e ' s d y n a m i c b e h a v i o r as a t h e r a p i s t

derives substantially from i n a d e q u a t e l y conscious e m o t i o n a l in­
vestments a n d interactional t e n d e n c i e s . T h i s m o d e l focuses o n t h e
therapist's e m o t i o n a l processing of his patient a n d t h e d y n a m i c
t h r u s t of his c o m m u n i c a t i o n s as t h e chief variable affecting t h e
trajectory of t h e i r w o r k t o g e t h e r . J u s t as t h e p a t i e n t - o r i e n t e d di­
dactic a p p r o a c h is often criticized in c o n t e m p o r a r y practice, by
those w h o r e g a r d it as naively Utopian, conformist (Lawner, 1985),
a v o i d a n t of d e e p e n g a g e m e n t , a n d / o r aridly intellectual, so is t h e
t h e r a p i s t - o r i e n t e d stance f r e q u e n d y faulted for b e i n g reckless in
failing to p r o v i d e a p r o p e r focus u p o n t r e a t m e n t , as well as for
m e d d l i n g in p e r s o n a l issues while p r o v i d i n g n o i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y for
t h e i r a d e q u a t e resolution.
T h e third model of psychoanalytic supervision, which has
g a i n e d i n c r e a s i n g e n t h u s i a s t i c s u p p o r t , was first d e s c r i b e d by
Searles (1955) a n d r e d e s i g n a t e d "parallel process," by Ekstein a n d
Wallerstein (1958). Searles (1955) idendfied a "reflection" process
in which a therapist-supervisee experiences a n impasse in his psy-
choanalydc p s y c h o t h e r a p y , a n d labors u n d e r t h e i m p a c t of p o t e n t
e m o t i o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s from his patient which a r e o b s c u r e to
h i m . H e t h e n t e n d s to enact t h e s a m e process with his s u p e r v i s o r
which his p a d e n t has unconsciously e x p r e s s e d with h i m ( F r e u d ,
1914a). H e unwittingly acts his patient's role. Searles r e c o g n i z e d
t h a t focusing u p o n this e n a c t m e n t a n d d e c o d i n g its d y n a m i c sig­
nificance assists t h e supervisee-therapist to b e c o m e a w a r e of t h e
n a t u r e of a key issue, a n d in c o n s e q u e n c e , to b e able to reinstate
m o v e m e n t in t h e t h e r a p e u t i c process. Searles' (1955) c o n t r i b u t i o n
has significandy a d v a n c e d t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d efficacy of t h e
supervisory situation, a n d r e v e r b e r a t i o n s of parallel process in di­
verse directions a l o n g a hypothetical patient-therapist, supervisee-
supervisor, supervisor-supervisor's p e e r g r o u p c o n t i n u u m h a v e
b e e n s t u d i e d avidly in r e c e n t years ( D o e h r m a n , 1976; Sachs a n d

594
 COUNTERIDENTIFICATION AND THERAPEUTIC IMPASSE

S h a p i r o , 1976; G e d i m a n a n d Wolkenfeld, 1980; Caligor, 1 9 8 1 ;

B r o m b e r g , 1982; G r a y a n d Fiscalini, 1987). I will discuss several
issues a b o u t which I h o l d a view c o n t r a r y to t h a t of Searles, a n d
which entail i m p o r t a n t heuristic a n d practical c o n s e q u e n c e s for
supervision as well as for t h e psychoanalytic p s y c h o t h e r a p y p r o ­
cess it influences.
First, Searles (1955) advises i n f o r m i n g t h e supervisee t h a t t h e r e
is a p a r t i c u l a r derivation of t h e parallel process h e is e n a c t i n g lest
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 19:07 16 February 2015

t h e supervisee b e c o m e defensive. Searles counsels t h a t t h e d i r e c ­

tion a n d e x p l a n a t i o n of causation is t h a t t h e supervisee wishes to
tell his s u p e r v i s o r by t h e only m e a n s h e is able (i.e., u n w i t t i n g r e -
e n a c t m e n t ) , t h e very issue his p a t i e n t has b e e n c o m m u n i c a t i n g (via
e n a c t m e n t ) to h i m .
Secondly, Searles stresses t h a t t h e e m o t i o n a l processes t h a t t h e
supervisee enacts with his supervisor, a n d which i m p e d e t h e su­
p e r v i s o r y p r o c e s s in a m a n n e r c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e way t h e
t h e r a p y process is b e i n g stalled, a r e o u t of c h a r a c t e r for t h e s u p e r ­
visee.
T h e s e two e m p h a s e s a r e consistent with each o t h e r . T h e y sug­
gest t h e supervisee is n o t essentially complicit in what is o c c u r r i n g ,
b u t is serving as a n auxiliary m e s s e n g e r . B u t t h e s e e m p h a s e s I wish
to challenge.
First, t h e f o r m u l a t i o n which they jointly s u p p o r t fails to a d d r e s s
t h e defensive significance of r e - e n a c t m e n t in t h e therapist's s u p e r ­
visory b e h a v i o r ( F r e u d , 1914a; Sachs a n d S h a p i r o , 1976; G e d i m a n
a n d Wolkenfeld, 1980; B r o m b e r g , 1982).^ Secondly, this f o r m u l a ­
tion conveys t h e idea that since t h e therapist's r e s p o n s e s a r e n o t
p a r t of his familiar r e p e r t o i r e a n d h e n c e , n o t "of h i m , " they h a v e
b e e n instilled in h i m f r o m o u t s i d e . T h i s is a s h o r t c o m i n g , I believe,
similar to those conclusions d r a w n from c o u n t e r t r a n s f e r e n c e p r o ­
cesses which a r e described as " i n d u c e d " (Spotnitz, 1976), o r p r o ­
jective identifications ( G r i n b e r g , 1962, 1976), which, while often
useful in clarifying t h e i m p a c t a n d i m p o r t of p a t i e n t c o m m u n i c a ­
tions, fail to h e e d t h e therapist's tacit collusion in i n t e g r a t i n g t h o s e

2 I anticipate here an issue upon which I shall later elaborate, to wit: not only is the
supervisee's behavior in supervision defensive, and defensive in a manner corre­
sponding to that which his patient has been expressing toward him (thus illustrating
the parallel process phenomenon), but it is also defensive in a related manner to
that which he in turn has been evincing in relation to his patient. I shall stress the
counteridentificatory nature of this latter kind of therapist defensiveness.

595
 PETER LAWNER, Ph.D.

e m o t i o n a l processes. It is this tacit collusion which is t h e t h e r a ­

peutic misalliance (see Meissner, 1980). T h i r d l y , it t e n d s to imply
to t h e supervisee that h e is insufficiently i n t e g r a t e d a n d resilient to
tolerate a w a r e n e s s of t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e very processes which a r e
i n d e e d a n aspect of his psychological m a k e - u p , a n d which p r o p ­
erly h e is obliged to b r i n g to t h e a w a r e n e s s of his patient.
I n this exculpation, as t h o u g h g u i l t - r i d d e n responsibility, self-
b l a m e , a n d / o r defensive r e p u d i a t i o n w e r e otherwise to b e c o m e t h e
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 19:07 16 February 2015

t h e r a p i s t ' s d o m i n a n t m o d e s of r e s p o n d i n g to t h e m a t t e r — a n d
c o n s e q u e n t b y p a s s i n g o f t h e s u p e r v i s e e — S e a r l e s yokes his dis­
covery of the parallel process to a n a r r o w p a t i e n t focus. While his
d y n a m i c a p p r o a c h c o m p e n s a t e s for t h e poverty of t h e exclusively
didactic e m p h a s i s traditionally associated with such a p a t i e n t focus
in supervision, h e nevertheless sacrifices m u c h of t h e efficacy I
find attainable if t h e a p p r e c i a d o n of parallel process is a c c o m p a ­
nied by a therapist focus within psychoanalytic supervision.

Counteridentifícation
I believe attention to counteridentification within supervision
provides a b r i d g e b e t w e e n t h e "therapist" a n d "parallel p r o c e s s "
foci.
A l t h o u g h F r e u d (1910a) f o r m u l a t e d t h e c o n c e p t of c o u n t e r -
t r a n s f e r e n c e early, h e paid little a t t e n t i o n to this vital process. Its
significance r e m a i n e d o b s c u r e for s o m e time. Describing it as u n ­
d e s i r a b l e a n d " b a d , " h e n c e r e q u i r i n g excision, t h e o t h e r c h i e f
characteristics F r e u d n o t e d w e r e t h a t it was: transferential, reac­
tive to t h e patient's p r i o r t r a n s f e r e n c e , defensive, a n d ultimately
c o u n t e r t h e r a p e u t i c . A n d this view has t e n d e d to b e m a i n t a i n e d by
those r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e classical psychoanalytic t r a d i t i o n .
By contrast, c o m m e n c i n g in t h e early 1950's a c o n c e p t i o n of
c o u n t e r t r a n s f e r e n c e has b u r g e o n e d which views it in a less r e ­
s t r i c t e d way t h a n h a v e t h e " c l a s s i c i s t s . " T h i s m o r e r e c e n t l y
e m e r g i n g "totalistic" version of it, as it has b e e n called ( K e r n b e r g ,
1965), diverges in every o n e of t h e above-cited respects f r o m t h e
classical version. Accordingly it is n o t entirely, n o r e v e n of neces­
sity primarily, transferential; n o t instigated by t h e a d v e n t of t h e
analysand's p r i o r t r a n s f e r e n c e ; n o t necessarily defensive; a n d p o ­
tentially n o t c o u n t e r t h e r a p e u t i c . R a t h e r , it is responsive to crucial
aspects of t h e c o r r e c d y , if subliminally, a p p r e h e n d e d realities o f
b o t h participants a n d contains a rich lode of therapeutically useful

596
 COUNTERIDENTIFICATION AND THERAPEUTIC IMPASSE

i n f o r m a t i o n as to t h e d y n a m i c essentials of t h e analytic i n t e r a c t i o n
(see Epstein a n d Feiner, 1979). T h e classical view of c o u n t e r t r a n s ­
ference in short, for several d e c a d e s now, has b e e n c h a l l e n g e d by
this optimistic "totalistic" alternative.
I believe, however, t h a t b o t h views h a v e failed to c o n s i d e r suffi­
ciently t h e issue of t h e defensiveness of c o u n t e r t r a n s f e r e n c e , a
characteristic which is essential to my f o r m u l a t i o n of c o u n t e r i d e n -
tification. T h e classical view n e v e r seriously a d d r e s s e s , in its o w n
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 19:07 16 February 2015

right, t h e u n c o n s c i o u s defensive p u r p o s e of t h e therapist's c o u n ­

t e r t r a n s f e r e n c e . It assumes t h a t processes which a r e t r a n s f e r e n t i a l
a n d those t h a t a r e c o u n t e r t h e r a p e u t i c a r e by definition defensive-
resistant. T h u s t h e r e is n o elaboration of this motivational c o m p o ­
n e n t . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d t h e totalistic viewpoint expressly m i n i ­
mizes t h e defensive significance of c o u n t e r t r a n s f e r e n c e . It stresses
instead its p r o d u c t i v e n e s s , a s s u m i n g it to b e a t t a i n e d t h r o u g h self-
analysis.
R o b e r t Fleiss (1953) i n t r o d u c e d t h e t e r m c o u n t e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ,
r e f e r r i n g it to a n u n c o n s c i o u s process in which t h e analyst reacts
by (counter) identifying with his analysand's unassimilated identi­
fication with a figure from his o w n past. T h o u g h c o u c h e d in a
classical F r e u d i a n idiom, his f o r m u l a t i o n significandy o v e r l a p s t h e
Kleinian (Klein, 1946, 1955) c o n c e p t of projective identification.
M o r e o v e r , h e predicates his view of it u p o n a n o u t m o d e d literal
distinction b e t w e e n irreversibly severe narcissistic, a n d m a n a g e ­
ably p r o b l e m a t i c object relational difficulties. By d e f i n i n g it as oc­
c u p y i n g t h e f o r m e r u n i v e r s e of d i s o r d e r s , h e p u r p o r t s it t o b e in
effect a n e g o distortion (Gitelson, 1958) of t h e analyst, c o n s t i t u t i n g
a n i n s u p e r a b l e b a r r i e r to t h e evolution of t h e analyses h e c o n d u c t s .
I define counteridentification as follows: a t h e r a p i s t a u t h o r e d ,
d e f e n s i v e , a n d (unless r e s o l v e d ) c o u n t e r t h e r a p e u t i c p r o c e s s in
which t h e t h e r a p i s t behaves in a n a n a l o g o u s m a n n e r to t h a t which
h e observes in his patient. T h e m a n n e r of t h e p a t i e n t with which
h e identifies a n d with which I c o n c e r n myself h e r e is itself typically
defensive.
While p a t i e n t s p o n s o r e d defensive-resistant processes show u p
as i m p e d i m e n t s to t h e r a p e u t i c u n f o l d i n g , m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e l y
they a r e essential to t h a t very unfolding.^ T h e i r explicit r e c o g n i -
' Transferences, of course, are essential as well (Freud, 1914b). My intention here is
to inquire into counteridentification as a (counter) defensive-resistant phenom­
enon, rather than as a (counter) transferential one.

597
 PETER LAWNER, Ph.D.

tion a n d analyses t h u s constitute a central aspect of t h e p r o d u c t i v e

analytic work which fosters a patient's self-integration. A n d h e n c e
it is n o t these ever r e c u r r i n g obstacles which u n d e r m i n e t h e work,
but r a t h e r the reciprocal therapist defensiveness which, by p r e ­
cluding t h e i r r e c o g n i d o n a n d tacidy assenting to t h e i r disjuncdve
aims, e n t r e n c h e s t h e m . T h e t e r m c o u n t e r r e s i s t a n c e has b e e n a p ­
plied to describe a therapist's u n a c k n o w l e d g e d opposition to rec­
o g n i z i n g a n d invidng elaboration of i m p o r t a n t t h e m e s his p a t i e n t
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 19:07 16 February 2015

direcdy o r indirectly c o m m u n i c a t e s , in r e s p o n s e to t h e resistive

m a n n e r in which t h e latter expresses t h e m . I c o n c e r n myself in
this essay with a significant species of this decisive t h e r a p i s t - s p o n ­
s o r e d reactive d e f e n s i v e n e s s (i.e., c o u n t e r r e s i s t i v e n e s s ) , d i s t i n ­
g u i s h e d by t h e therapist's e n a c d n g a defensive-resistive process
closely m o d e l e d u p o n that a d v a n c e d by his patient.
Delineation of a process such as I a m p r o p o s i n g has a m p l e p r e c ­
e d e n t in t h e literature. U p t o n (1977), for e x a m p l e , d e m o n s t r a t e s
its o c c u r r e n c e as a n analysand-initiated event. Mutatis mutandh,
t h e r e would a p p e a r to be n o r e a s o n to d o u b t t h e amenability of
s u c h a d e f e n s i v e - r e s i s t a n t i d e n t i f i c a d o n process to u n c o n s c i o u s
e m p l o y m e n t by t h e therapist-analyst.

Counteridentifícation Amplifíed—A Continuum from

Empathy to Severe Counteridentifícatíon
I view c o u n t e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as o c c u p y i n g o n e e n d of a c o n ­
t i n u u m , t h e o p p o s i t e pole of which may be described as e m p a t h y .
It is interesting t h a t Fleiss (1953), w h o conceptualized c o u n t e r -
identification as a process g r o w i n g o u t of a pathological e g o struc­
t u r e in the analyst, r o u g h l y a d e c a d e earlier, n o t e d a key function
of t h e analyst's "work e g o " b e i n g to e n g a g e in (and t h e n d i s e n g a g e
himself from) "trial identification" with t h e e x p e r i e n c e s of his a n a -
lysand (Fleiss, 1942). If t h e e x p e r i e n c e of such "trial identification"
a n d s u b s e q u e n t critical observation of its effects a r e viewed as d e ­
finitive of the process of e m p a t h y (Beres a n d Arlow, 1974, p r o v i d e
a n edifying elaboration of this view), t h e n a m o d e l suggests itself
for a c o n t i n u u m from p r o d u c t i v e t h e r a p i s t e m p a t h y at o n e pole,
to u n s u r m o u n t a b l e ( c o u n t e r t h e r a p e u t i c ) counteridentification at
t h e o t h e r . Such a c o n d n u u m m a y be conceived of as c o m p r i s e d
of two intertwined d i m e n s i o n s . E m p a t h y t h e r e b y consists of t e m ­
p o r a r y identification with a n o t h e r ' s e x p e r i e n c e s , y e a r n i n g s , con­
flicts, confusions, anxieties, self-demands, ego states, a n d so f o r t h .

598
 COUNTERIDENTIFICATION AND THERAPEUTIC IMPASSE

s u c c e e d e d by t h e r e - e x p e r i e n c e of h i m as a s e p a r a t e individual, b u t
n o w with a n i m a g e of h i m e n r i c h e d by t h e p r e c e d i n g sensing of
this aspect of his i n n e r world. T o w a r d t h e o t h e r pole o c c u r t h o s e
counteridentificatory processes in which t h e therapist's identifica­
tion with his p a d e n t is p r o l o n g e d , a n d p r e d o m i n a n d y aligned with
defensive-resistant processes in h i m . Viewed this way, c o u n t e r -
identification which is severe a n d unresolvable rests u p o n e x t r e m e
quantitative (i.e., t e m p o r a l l y e x t e n d e d ) a n d qualitative (identifica­
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 19:07 16 February 2015

tion with one's patient's major defensive attitudes) bases. B e t w e e n

t h e s e p o l a r e x t r e m e s lie all m a n n e r of c o m b i n a t i o n s of qualitative
a n d q u a n t i t a t i v e f e a t u r e s . D e p e n d i n g u p o n t h e severity of t h e
counteridentificatory processes at work, they r e n d e r self-analytic
a n d (in m o r e recalcitrant instances) supervisory e x p l o r a t i o n m o r e
o r less availing in resolving t h e m a n d t h e t h e r a p e u t i c impasses
they e n g e n d e r .
T w o f u r t h e r c o n c e p t u a l p o i n t s a r e in o r d e r . First, d i f f e r e n ­
tiating c o u n t e r t r a n s f e r e n c e f r o m counteridentification is crucial. I
see c o u n t e r t r a n s f e r e n c e as entailing (at least initially) t h e u n c o n ­
scious defensive a s s u m p t i o n of a reciprocal r o l e to t h a t a s s u m e d by
one's p a t i e n t (Sandler, 1976). Counteridentification, contrastingly,
entails a role coincident with o n e t h a t t h e p a t i e n t evidences. H o w ­
ever, as Fleiss (1953) astutely r e m a r k s , every c o u n t e r t r a n s f e r e n c e
rests ultimately u p o n a counteridentification. T h e s e c o n d observa­
tion c o n c e r n s counteridentification as a fusional p h e n o m e n o n a n d
its resolution. If counteridentification is conceived as a regressive
s u r r e n d e r of individuality by t h e t h e r a p i s t in t h e service of a d e ­
fensive fusional collusion with his p a t i e n t , t h e n d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g
from h i m w o u l d seem to b e essential. F u r t h e r m o r e , such a n in­
creasing a w a r e n e s s of t h e distinctiveness of t h e o t h e r regularly
t e n d s to b e a c c o m p a n i e d by h e i g h t e n e d a w a r e n e s s o f a n aspect of
oneself. I n supervision I u n d e r s c o r e t h a t s e p a r a t i n g oneself f r o m
oneself, t h a t is, m a n a g i n g to e n g e n d e r t h a t p r o d u c t i v e a l t e r n a t i o n
o r split (Lawner, 1985) b e t w e e n one's o w n so-called e x p e r i e n c i n g
a n d o b s e r v i n g self (Fleiss, 1942; Beres a n d Arlow, 1974) is i n t e g r a l
to resolving a h e r e t o f o r e o b s t r u c t i n g counteridentification.

Expressions of Counteridentification in
Psychoanalytic Supervision
Searles (1955) did n o t e t h a t t h e supervisee t e n d s unconsciously
to enact p r o b l e m a t i c issues a n d a t t i t u d e s with his s u p e r v i s o r which

599
 PETER LAWNER, Ph.D.

his p a t i e n t e n a c t e d with h i m . T h e supervisor in t u r n , w h o is as­

s u m e d n o t to c o n t i n u e a reciprocal e n a c t m e n t with his supervisee,
b r i n g s this to light as a m e a n s of clarifying h i t h e r t o o b s c u r e dy­
n a m i c processes in t h e patient. I a g r e e with Searles' e m p h a s i s o n
t h e necessity of the supervisor differentiating himself t h r o u g h in­
sight from t h e e n a c t m e n t process."* O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , as earlier
n o t e d , I differ from h i m r e g a r d i n g his p r e d o m i n a n t p a t i e n t focus.
I view t h e e n a c t m e n t p r o c e s s , c o r r e l a t e d with m y a t t e n t i o n to
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 19:07 16 February 2015

c o u n t e r i d e n t i f i c a d o n r a t h e r t h a n to c o u n t e r t r a n s f e r e n c e , b e i n g
with g r e a t frequency o n e in which n o t only d o e s t h e supervisee
replicatively enact with his supervisor t h e unconscious defensive
process s h o w n by his patient; h e has i n d e e d b e e n e n a c t i n g this
s a m e defensive process with his patient, by so m i r r o r i n g h i m , con­
stituting t h e t h e r a p e u t i c impasse.
It t h e r e f o r e b e h o o v e s t h e supervisor to n o t e a n d e x p l o r e t h e
m a n n e r in which t h e s u p e r v i s e e h a s b e e n defensively a l i g n i n g
himself with t h e patient. T h e s u p e r v i s o r achieves this result by
w o r k i n g to free himself from indiscriminate reactivity to t h e p a r ­
allel-process-mediated "pull" t o w a r d s defensive interaction with
his supervisee. I n d o i n g so, h e g a t h e r s a n d proffers insight into
t h e n a t u r e of t h e supervisee's defensive dedifferentiation with r e ­
spect to his p a t i e n t a n d invitation t o c o r r e s p o n d i n g defensive in­
teraction with t h e supervisor. H e illuminates t h e patient's similarly
s t r u c t u r e d unconscious defensive c o m m u n i c a t i o n s to t h e s u p e r ­
visee; a n d h e sponsors t h e r e i n s t a t e m e n t of a non-defensive, c o m -
m u n i c a d v e m o d e of relatedness with his supervisee. T h e s u p e r ­
visee t e n d s t o e x p e r i e n c e insight into himself i s o m o r p h i c t o this
i n t e r p e r s o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t with his supervisor, a n evolution typi­
cally c o n c u r e n t with his e x p e r i e n c e of illumination r e g a r d i n g his
patient.

Clinical Examples
(1) Dr. I., w h o revealed in passing o n several occasions h a v i n g
felt u n c a r e d for a n d h a v i n g l o n g e d for c a r i n g a t t e n t i o n f r o m a key
figure in his family, r e p o r t e d his a p p r e h e n s i o n a b o u t t h e r e c e n t

•· There are those (see Caligor, 1981) who by contrast emphasize the typicalness of
the supervisor too being swept up in the process. Of course, such an immersion,
analogous to that of the therapist earlier discussed, especially if quantitatively and
qualitatively extreme, deprives the supervisor of the means to clarify the influences
impeding the therapeutic process.

600
 COUNTERIDENTIFICATION AND THERAPEUTIC IMPASSE

d e t e r i o r a t i o n of o n e of his l o n g t e r m patients, as well as a b o u t t h e

m a n n e r in which h e h a d b e e n h a n d l i n g h e r . A n obese, p r o m i s ­
c u o u s , diabetic w o m a n , given to self-destructive b e h a v i o r such as
neglecting contraceptive a n d prophylactic p r e c a u t i o n s a n d h i n g i n g
periodically, s h e h a d b e c o m e p r e g n a n t recently. S u r m i s i n g t h a t
t h e f a t h e r of h e r fetus was a p a r t i c u l a r m a n w h o m s h e liked, b u t
with w h o m a c o m m i t t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p a p p e a r e d t h o r o u g h l y i m ­
plausible, s h e r e m a r k e d acidly t h a t t h e i r baby w o u l d p r o b a b l y b e
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 19:07 16 February 2015

" U S D A p r i m e . " Feeling d e s p a r a t e a n d e x p e r i e n c i n g h e r gynecolo­

gist as n e i t h e r i n t e r e s t e d n o r helpful, s h e indicated a "self-destruc­
tive" u r g e to binge. H e r t h e r a p i s t r e p o r t e d himself t h e n to h a v e
i n t e v e n e d : "Yes, it would b e self-destructive. W e k n o w h o w self-
destructive y o u a r e . W h y d o y o u t h i n k t h a t is?" Stressing this t o
h a v e b e e n his r e t o r t , h e indicated his conviction t h a t h e was b e i n g
sadistic to h e r , a j u d g m e n t which was, h e said, c o n f i r m e d — a s it
s e e m e d to m e , with moralizing f e r v o r — b y m e m b e r s of a s e m i n a r
to which h e h a d recently r e p o r t e d his work.
H e p r o c e e d e d to tell of t h e patient's c h i l d h o o d d u r i n g which, in
relation to h e r diabetes, s h e h a d felt u n c a r e d for by h e r o l d e r sister
a n d b r o t h e r , t h e f o r m e r of w h o m was afraid of blood, t h e latter of
n e e d l e s . S h e used to chase h e r b r o t h e r with n e e d l e s a n d squirt
w a t e r a t h i m . H e r r e m a r k s , s u c h as c h a r a c t e r i z i n g h e r s e l f as a
"piece of m e a t " w e r e consistent with h e r caustically d e r o g a t o r y a n d
d e h u m a n i z i n g self-presentation. While D r . I. r e s p o n d e d at times
with curiosity to such d e g r a d i n g self-descriptions, a n d r e m i n d e d
h e r o f a d r e a m s h e h a d previously r e p o r t e d which i m p l i e d a m o t i ­
vation for "self-repair," t h u s p r o v i d i n g h e r with e l e m e n t s of c a r e
giving a n d affirmation, h e nevertheless m a d e m u c h of his p u r ­
p o r t e d l y adversely j u d g m e n t a l stance t o w a r d h e r .
It was t h e n possible to discuss with h i m t h a t h e r n e e d l i n g o f h e r
sibling, of h i m , a n d of herself by h e r f l a g r a n t self-depreciation,
substantially r e p r e s e n t e d a n a t t e m p t to take c h a r g e of a n d h e n c e
m i n i m i z e a painful sense of n o t b e i n g c a r e d for by a n y o n e . I n this
crisis in which h e too felt helpless a n d u n c a r e d for, for defensive
p u r p o s e s a n d by m e a n s similar to h e r s , h e attacked h e r a n d h i m ­
self. By c o n d e m n i n g h e r (". . . you a r e a self-destructive p e r s o n " ) ,
b u t m o s t conspicuously himself, e.g. t h r o u g h seemingly " s e d u c i n g
t h e a g g r e s s o r " (Lowenstein, 1957) in his s e m i n a r , m a l i g n i n g h i m ­
self for his "sadism," as well as tacitly inviting h e r c o n t i n u e d m a s o ­
chistically clothed attack o n h i m t h r o u g h r e l e n d e s s self-deprecia-

601
 PETER LAWNER, Ph.D.

tion, h e replicated h e r m o d e of c i r c u m v e n t i n g a sense of helpless

a b a n d o n m e n t . T h u s h e o b s c u r e d h e r c u r r e n t most u r g e n t l y felt
p r e d i c a m e n t a n d h e r m a n n e r of distancing from it via his c o u n t e r -
identification.

(2) I n t h e t h i r d session of h e r p r e s e n t a t i o n to a s u p e r v i s i o n
g r o u p , D r . R. r e p o r t e d t h a t in t h e previous g r o u p m e e t i n g she h a d
felt as t h o u g h t h e g r o u p h a d b e e n characterizing h e r p a t i e n t as
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 19:07 16 February 2015

b e i n g " b a d , " a n d of h a v i n g e x p e r i e n c e d t h e u r g e to d e f e n d h e r .
D r . R. h a d initiated t h e supervisory p r e s e n t a t i o n of work with Miss
M., h e r p a d e n t of VA years, with t h e e x p l a n a t i o n that "while o u r
sessions a r e pleasant, t h e y ' r e o n t h e surface s o m e h o w , a n d feel as
t h o u g h t h e y ' r e not g o i n g a n y w h e r e . "
A m o n g t h e essentials of t h e history a n d c u r r e n t life situation of
Miss M., which D r . R. h a d earlier r e c o u n t e d , w e r e i n c l u d e d t h e
following: Miss M. h a d b e e n d e s e r t e d at a g e two by h e r m o t h e r ,
ostensibly because of a c h r o n i c disease necessitating brief hospital­
ization. H e r m o t h e r h a d c o n s e q u e n t l y t u r n e d Miss M. a n d t h e
m o t h e r ' s y o u n g e r siblings (for w h o m she h a d also b e e n t h e c a r e ­
taker) over to t h e care of a family friend. Miss M. s u b s e q u e n d y h a d
b e e n sexually m o l e s t e d by h e r uncle (the m o t h e r ' s y o u n g e r
b r o t h e r ) while b o t h w e r e in t h e c a r e of t h e i r new g u a r d i a n s . I n
r e c e n t sessions, Miss M., now in h e r late adolescence, e m p h a s i z e d
t h e c u r r e n t o r d e a l of b e i n g accused by h e r s t e p f a t h e r o f b e i n g
" b a d " (e.g., sexually indiscriminate).
T w o o t h e r o c c u r r e n c e s f r o m t h e s u p e r v i s o r y session d e s e r v e
m e n t i o n . Dr. R. r e m a r k e d t h a t as a c o n s e q u e n c e of t h e p r e v i o u s
g r o u p discussions she h a d p u t a stop to h e r habit of giving Miss M.
a p p r o x i m a t e l y five e x t r a m i n u t e s each session a n d h a d invited h e r
attention to it. S h e said t h a t Miss M. h a d evidenced n o interest in
this at all, n e i t h e r to t h e time given n o r t a k e n away. I n s t e a d , she
r e v e r t e d t h e focus of discussion to h e r uncle's c h i l d h o o d sexual
a b u s e of h e r . I n a d d i t i o n , o n e of t h e g r o u p m e m b e r s perceptively
o b s e r v e d t h a t w h e n r e p o r t i n g Miss M's s t a t e m e n t t h a t s h e was
"given" h e r uncle w h e n she was relocated to t h e g u a r d i a n ' s a b o d e .
D r . R. " m a d e it s o u n d like a gift, r a t h e r t h a n h e r m o t h e r ' s a b a n ­
d o n m e n t of b o t h of t h e m . "
I n o t e d to D r . R. t h a t t h e p e r s o n w h o e x p e r i e n c e s , yet also w a r d s
off, i n t e n s e guilt, t e n d s to feel d e s e r v i n g a n d t h e n fearful of p u n ­
i s h m e n t . T h i s s e e m e d to be t r u e of Miss M., w h o gave m u c h evi-

602
 C O U N T E R I D E N T I F I C A T I O N A N D T H E R A P E U T I C IMPASSE

d e n c e of h a r b o r i n g such a feeling in relation to h e r m o t h e r . O n e

of a n u m b e r of pieces of d a t a s u g g e s t i n g this, for e x a m p l e , was a
p a r a p r a x i s by Dr. R. in which she r e f e r r e d to h e r p a d e n t by t h e
n a m e of h e r m o t h e r ' s disease, b o t h of which h a d a p p e l a t i o n s be­
g i n n i n g with t h e s a m e letter. I p r o p o s e d that o n e of t h e feelings
Miss M. was w a r d i n g off by p r o c l a i m i n g h e r victimization a n d u n ­
j u s t i n d i c t m e n t was a belief in b e i n g responsible for h a v i n g given
h e r m o t h e r t h e d r e a d e d illness, t h e r e b y driving h e r away. D r . R.
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 19:07 16 February 2015

was t h e n able to recognize a sense of h a v i n g b e e n identified with

Miss M. in h e r e x p e r i e n c e of guilty responsibility. She also c o u n -
teridentified with h e r in w a r d i n g off this feeling by ostensibly m u ­
tual gift giving. T h u s , a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r tacit collusion, it was as
t h o u g h D r . R. w e r e a f f i r m i n g , "Yes, y o u give m e p l e a s a n t ses­
sions." At a n o t h e r point h e r p a t i e n t indicated, " Y o u ' r e t h e only
o n e I tell these things t o , " e n u n c i a d n g a gift of e x c l u s i v i t y — a n d
D r . R. r e s p o n d e d in kind, e.g., a n d "I give you e x t r a t i m e . " F u r ­
t h e r , t h e characterologic relevance of this process to t h e t h e r a p i s t
was expressly suggested w h e n n e a r t h e conclusion of h e r g r o u p
p r e s e n t a t i o n D r . R. p o i g n a n d y r e m a r k e d , in r e s p o n s e to a n u p ­
s u r g e of sadness in herself a n d plainly a l l u d i n g to h e r o w n past: "I
know what it is like to feel guilty a n d responsible in relation to a
p a r e n t you feel you've h u r t . "

(3) D r . T . b e g a n a s u p e r v i s o r y s e s s i o n by s a y i n g h e felt
"blocked," a p p a r e n d y r e f e r r i n g to his indecision as to which pa­
t i e n t to discuss. H e settled o n M r . K., a late m i d d l e a g e d m a n
a b o u t w h o m h e h a d previously s p o k e n , whose o v e r r i d i n g c o m ­
plaint c o n c e r n e d a painful a n d h u m i l i a t i n g u r e t h r a l blockage f r o m
which h e h a d suffered for d e c a d e s , a n d t o w a r d t h e t r e a t m e n t of
w h o m D r . T . e x p r e s s e d a "lack of o r i e n t a t i o n . " A parallel process
e n a c t m e n t was suggested by t h e striking c o r r e s p o n d e n c e in t h e
t h e r a p e u t i c p a i r c o n c e r n i n g "blocking," a n d was s u p p o r t e d by t h e
r e s e m b l a n c e of t h e two participants' sense of b e i n g u n a b l e to direct
t h e f l o w — " u r i n a r y " (Mr. K.) a n d psychological (Dr. T . ) — a s well
as by D r . T's a b u n d a n t e m o t i o n a l blocking d u r i n g this supervisory
hour.
D r . T . e l a b o r a t e d Mr. K's e x p e r i e n c e of a veritable Ufetime of
d o c t o r s b e i n g indecisive in t h e i r diagnosis of his ailment, b o t c h i n g
t h e i r surgical i n t e r v e n t i o n s with r e g a r d to it, n o t truly b e i n g con­
c e r n e d a b o u t him, a n d claiming t h a t h e e x a g g e r a t e d his p a i n . H e

603
 PETER LAWNER, Ph.D.

r e p o r t e d his p a t i e n t to b e o n "disability" as well as to feel p a w n e d

off by his wife a n d c h i l d r e n , yet obliged to s u p p r e s s his r e s e n t m e n t
t o w a r d his wife a n d to comply with h e r wishes because she w o r k e d
a n d h e d i d n ' t . W h e n D r . T . related s p e a k i n g to Mr. K. of his " d o ­
cility"—indeed t h e first sign I d i s c e r n e d of his a s s u m i n g a distinct
d i r e c t i o n — I asked for amplification. H e p r o m p t l y r e p o r t e d his
having r e t r a c t e d it, giving t h e e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t h e was c u r r e n t l y
participating in a self-psychology s e m i n a r , a n d since it o c c u r r e d to
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 19:07 16 February 2015

h i m after h e s p o k e to Mr. K. of his docility t h a t it m i g h t b e too

confrontative, h e directly w i t h d r e w consideration of it. H e also r e ­
p o r t e d f o r m u l a t i n g to Mr. K. t o w a r d t h e e n d of this t h e r a p y ses­
sion t h e parallel b e t w e e n his a n g e r a n d s u p p r e s s i o n of it in rela­
tion to his wife, a n d to his m o t h e r in t h e past. While h e n o t e d his
p r o p o s e d correlation to h a v e excited Mr. K's interest, h e said t h a t
in their n e x t session Mr. K. h a d c o n c e r n e d himself overridingly
with his psychosomatic s y m p t o m s . D r . T . in r e s p o n s e feeling sty­
m i e d a n d helpless. I p o i n t e d o u t a classic t r a n s f e r e n c e resistance o f
Mr. K., which h e e x p r e s s e d by r e n d e r i n g t h e o t h e r u n h e l p f u l —
i.e., p r e s e n t i n g to Dr. Τ a b u l w a r k of somatic complaints d e s p i t e
D r . T's h a v i n g b e e n h e l p f u l t h r o u g h m e a n i n g f u l psychological
i n p u t . I indicated as well t h e evident t r a n s f e r e n c e - c o u n t e r t r a n s -
ference interlocking e n t e r e d into by D r . T . , in which h e e x h i b i t e d
a n insistent wish to be helpful, h e n c e not a t t e n d i n g to his patient's
motivation to p o r t r a y h i m otherwise.
I suggested t h a t Mr. K's p r e d o m i n a n t l y defensive a p p r o a c h was
ostensibly to comply with a n d d e f e r to o t h e r s by s e e m i n g to p u t his
fate a n d well-being utterly at t h e i r disposal, as by his resourceless
somatic e m p h a s i s . By so d o i n g h e secretly a n d angrily t h w a r t e d
t h e m . Analogously, D r . T . e n g a g e d with Mr. K. defensively by
highlighting his o w n cooperativeness a n d helpfulness. I n t r u t h h e
r e n d e r e d himself so t h o r o u g h l y n o n - p a r t i c i p a t o r y a n d i n e r t t h a t
h e f r u s t r a t e d o p e r a t i v e c o m p o n e n t s of his p a r t n e r ' s g e n u i n e l y
t h e r a p e u t i c motivation. I f u r t h e r p r o p o s e d that D r . T's e v i d e n c i n g
such a defensive d y n a m i c in interaction with m e in supervision n o t
b e c o m p r e h e n d e d solely in t e r m s of a traditionally f o r m u l a t e d
parallel process. It is b e t t e r u n d e r s t o o d as replicating in t h e s u p e r ­
visory r e l a t i o n s h i p his c o u n t e r i d e n t i f i c a t o r y s t a n c e with his p a ­
tient. F o r e x a m p l e , typical was t h e perspective r e g a r d i n g his r e ­
s p o n s e to my f o r m u l a t i o n to h i m c o n c e r n i n g t h e constituents of
the currently operative transference-countertransference obstruc-

604
 COUNTERIDENTIFICATION AND THERAPEUTIC IMPASSE

t i o n . I p r o p o s e d t h a t t h e u r g e n c y of his s t r i v i n g to b e h e l p f u l
served to eclipse his p e r c e p t i o n of his patient's motive to r e n d e r
h i m o t h e r w i s e . T o this h e r e p l i e d : " Y e s , i n g e n e r a l t h a t ' s a
p r o b l e m of m i n e . " I suggested t h a t while facilely yielding a n d c o m ­
pliant ( a n d t h e substitute w o r d " c o m p l a i n t " insistendy i n t r u d e s it­
self h e r e ) , by i g n o r i n g t h e specificity of t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n t e x t
u p o n which I h a d c o m m e n t e d a n d by reifying himself, h e was si-
l e n d y r e g i s t e r i n g a defiant p r o t e s t , as t h o u g h c o m m u n i c a d n g t o
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 19:07 16 February 2015

m e , " T o o b a d you d o n ' t like it, b u t that's t h e way I a m ! " T h i s was

w h a t M r . K. was e x p r e s s i n g to h i m a n d h e in k i n d was c o n v e y i n g
to Mr. K.

Conclusion
I m o d e l m y c o n c e p t i o n of counteridentification u p o n t h e p a r a ­
d i g m F r e u d (1912) sketched in t h e " T h e Dynamics of T r a n s f e r ­
e n c e , " to t h e effect t h a t t r a n s f e r e n c e s a r e a d v a n c e d for resistant
p u r p o s e s . I p r o p o s e that t h e t h e r a p i s t , in r e s p o n s e to a n obscurely
a p p r e h e n d e d relational t h r e a t , often unconsciously selects f r o m
his defensive characterological r e p e r t o i r e a defensive-resistant at­
t i t u d e , behavior, etc. m a t c h i n g o n e which his p a t i e n t is forcefully
e x p r e s s i n g , so as to forestall t h e p r o s p e c t i v e e x p a n s i o n , d e e p ­
e n i n g , a n d u n f o l d i n g of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p .
Secondly, I p r o p o s e that o n o n e h a n d , supervisees t e n d to
p r e s e n t for supervisory scrutiny w o r k with those patients w h o p r o ­
voke such a counteridentification process in t h e m as a n e x p r e s s i o n
of a progressive, self-exploratory striving. T h e y d o so, in o t h e r
w o r d s , o u t of a c o n c e r n t h a t they a r e e n g a g e d in a n inarticulated,
ego-syntonic defensive way, in flight f r o m a n e m e r g i n g c u r r e n t o f
r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e i r p a t i e n t . H o w e v e r , I believe t h a t in p r e ­
s e n t i n g to t h e i r supervisors t h e s a m e defensive f r o n t t h a t they a r e
o n g o i n g l y p r e s e n t i n g to t h e i r p a t i e n t , they c o n c u r r e n d y e x p r e s s a
wish for a n d invitation to h i m to collude in t h e i r counteridentifica­
tory avoidance.
Finally, I s h o u l d like to amplify t h e simple, yet p r o f o u n d obser­
vation by R o b e r t Fleiss (1953), t h a t every c o u n t e r t r a n s f e r e n c e is
based u p o n a counteridentification. Fleiss' observation is c o n s o ­
n a n t with F r e u d ' s (1915) vital discovery t h a t one's l e a d i n g o r i e n t a ­
tion to o r e x p e r i e n c e of a r e l a t i o n s h i p o n a n o t h e r p l a n e of a w a r e ­
ness consists of its a p p a r e n t c o m p l e m e n t a r y , reciprocal, o r o p p o ­
site disposition. If t h e e x p e r i e n c e of c o u n t e r t r a n s f e r e n c e t h e n is

605
 PETER LAWNER, Ph.D.

u n d e r s t o o d as c o n s t i t u t e d of t h e n o n r e f lective e n a c t m e n t of a r e ­
ciprocal e m o t i o n a l s t a n c e to t h a t of o n e ' s p a t i e n t , c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y
I a s s u m e this p r o c e s s r e g u l a r l y to b e a c c o m p a n i e d by a d i s c l a i m e d
o v e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d c o i n c i d e n c e with t h e m o t i v a t i o n a l s t a n c e o f
t h e o t h e r to which it a p p e a r s so c o n s p i c u o u s l y r e c i p r o c a l . It is t h u s
t h a t c o u n t e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c a n b e f o u n d to b e e x p r e s s e d by t h e r a ­
pists as a m e a n s t o forestall t h e e v o l u t i o n o f t h e o f t e n t h r e a t e n i n g
r e l a t i o n a l psychoanalytic p r o c e s s .
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 19:07 16 February 2015

REFERENCES
Beres, D. and Arlow, J. (1974) Fantasy and identification in empathy. Psychoanalytic
Quarterly, 5 3 : 2 6 - 5 0 .
Bromberg, P. (1982) The supervisory process and parallel process. Contemporary
Psychoanalysis, 1 8 : 9 2 - 111.
Caligor, L. (1981) Parallel and reciprocal processes in psychoanalytic supervision.
Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 1 7 : 1 - 2 7 .
Doehrman, M. (1976) Parallel processes in supervision and psychotherapy. Bulletin
of the Menninger Clinic, 4 0 : 9 - 1 0 4 .
Ekstein, R. and Wallerstein, R. (1958) The Teaching and Learning of Psychotherapy.
New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Epstein, L. and Feiner, A. (1979) Countertransference: The therapist's contribu­
tion to the treatment. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 15:489-513.
Fleiss, R. (1942) The metapsychology of the analyst. Psychoanalytic Quarterly.
11:211-227.
Fleiss, R. (1953) Countertransference and counteridentification. youma/o/ the Amer­
ican Psychoanalytic Association, 1:268-284.
Freud, S. (1910a) The future prospects of psycho-analytic psychotherapy. Standard
Edition, 1 1 : 1 3 9 - 1 5 1 .
Freud, S. (1910b) "Wild" psychoanalysis. Standard Edition, 11:219-227.
Freud, S. (1912) The dynamics of transference. Standard Edition, 1 2 : 9 9 - 1 0 8 .
Freud, S. (1914a) Remembering, repeating, and working through. (Further recom­
mendations on the technique of psychoanalysis.) Standard Edition, 1 2 : 1 4 5 - 1 5 6 .
Freud, S. (1914b) On the history of the psycho-analytic movement. Standard Edition,
14:7-66.
Freud, S. (1915) Instincts and their vicissitudes. Standard Edition, 14:117-140.
Gedimen, H. and Wolkenfeld, F. (1980) The parallelism phenomenon in psycho­
analysis and supervision: Its reconsideration as a triadic system. Psychoanalytic
Quarterly, 4 9 : 2 3 4 - 2 5 5 .
Gitelson, M. (1958) On ego distortion. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis,
39:245-257.
Gray, A. and Fiscalini, J. (1987) Parallel processes as transference-countertransfer-
ence interaction. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 4:131-144.
Grinberg, L. (1962) On a specific aspect of countertransference due to the patient's
projective identification. International Journal of Psycho-Armlysis, 4 3 : 4 3 6 - 4 4 0 .
Grinberg, L. (1979) Countertransference and projective counteridentification. Con­
temporary Psychoanalysis, 15:226-247.

606
 COUNTERIDENTIFICATION AND THERAPEUTIC IMPASSE

Heimann, P. (1950) On countertransference. IntematioTwl Journal of Psycho-Analysis,

31:81-84.
Kernberg, O. (1965) Notes on countertransference.youma/o/ the American Psychoan­
alytic Association, 1 3 : 3 8 - 5 6 .
Klein, M. (1946) Notes on some schizoid mechanisms. In: Envy and Gratitude
Other Works, 1946-1963. New York: Delta, 1975.
Klein, M. (1955) On identification. In: Envy and Gratitude & Other Works,
1946-1963. New York: Delta, 1975.
LaPlanche, J. and Pontalis, J-B. (1973) The Language of Psycho-analysis. New York:
W.W. Norton Sc Co.
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 19:07 16 February 2015

Lawner, P. (1985) The "outcome" of psychoanalytic psychotherapy: conformity,

peculiarity, and "common unhappiness." Journal of the American Academy of
Psycho-Analysis, 13:35—49.
Lipton, S. (1977) Clinical observations on resistance to the transference. Interna­
tional Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 4 1 : 1 6 - 3 3 .
Little, M. (1951) Counter-transference and the patient's response to it. International
Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 32:32—40.
Lowenstein, R. (1957) A contribution to the psychoanalytic theory of masochism.
Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 5:197—234.
Meissner, W. (1980) A note on projective identification./ouma/ of the American Psy­
choanalytic Association, 2 8 : 4 3 - 6 7 .
Reich, A. (1951) On countertransference. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis,
32:25-31.
Reich, A. (1960) Further remarks on countertransference. International Journal of
Psycho-Analysis, 4 1 : 3 8 9 - 3 9 5 .
Sachs, D. and Shapiro, S. (1976) On parallel process in therapy and teaching. Psy­
choanalytic Quarterly, 4 5 : 3 9 4 - 4 1 5 .
Sandler, J. (1976) Countertransference and role-responsiveness. International Re­
view of Psycho-Analysis, 3:43—48.
Searles, H. (1955) The informational value of the supervisor's emotional experi­
ences. In: Collected Papers on Schizophrenia and Related Subjects. New York: Interna­
tional Universities Press, 1965.
Spotnitz, Η. (1976) Psychotherapy of Preoedipal Conditions. New York: Jason Aronson,
Inc.
Wagner, F. (1957) Supervision of Psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychotherapy,
11:759-768.

5 Watson Road, Room 203

B e l m o n t , Massachusetts 0 2 1 7 8

607