ABSTRACT
Heinrich Racker contributed greatly to our understanding of countertransference, including his distinction between concordant and complementary countertransference. Like Helene Deutsch, Racker was mostly concerned with the complementary because he identified the concordant with empathy. But concordant countertransference, when it is relatively unconscious, may disturb empathy as much as relatively unconscious complementary countertransference. Both may enhance empathy and understanding when they are relatively conscious and the object of the analyst's self-reflection. Several clinical vignettes are discussed to illustrate this point. If, as I claim, Racker was mistaken in associating the concordant countertransference with empathy, why has this error gone largely unrecognized in our literature for half a century?
