ABSTRACT
Countertransference, a concept defined by Freud (1910) in Nuremberg in his essay “The Future Prospects of Psychoanalytic Theory,” ought to be revisited and discussed in light of current psychoanalytic practice in the River Plate region. Why?
Because of the relevance of countertransference to clinical work in Argentina and Uruguay.
Because, following pioneering developments by Heinrich Racker first, and León Grinberg later, Willy and Madeleine Baranger’s (1961) ideas on the analytic field constitute a major input toward the understanding of this notion.
Due to the significant reformulation of its clinical implementation based on Lacan’s contributions, which have circulated in the region during the last 30 years. It is in this context that the concept of countertransference must be articulated with the concepts of the desire of the analyst and of the analyst’s subjective engagement in the cure. 1
Because of the need to account for its wide use in clinical practice. In this sense, I agree with Freud’s suggestion that the use of countertransference must be adjusted to the patient’s psychopathological structure.
Building on my own experience, I intend to (1) identify some controversial issues regarding the clinical implementation of the countertransference based on the writings of Freud and mainly of Racker; (2) further its conceptualization by articulating it with other ideas generated in this region of the world, particularly W. and M. Baranger’s field theory, and with the concepts of subjective engagement and the desire of the analyst; and (3) drawing from Laplanche and Pontalis (1973), link countertransference to evenly suspended attention, one of the components of the analytic method, in connection with Sandler’s (1976) notion of “free-floating responsiveness.”