ABSTRACT
As stated at the beginning of this book, attitudes toward the analyst and the analyst's role have undergone a change in America during the past 15 years. Many analysts have come to regard analytic work as an interactional enterprise (Gill, 1982; Greenberg, 1986; Modell, 1986; Stolorow, Brandchaft, and Atwood, 1987; Stolorow and Lachmann, 1988; Dorpat and Miller, 1992; Mitchell, 1993; Stolorow and Atwood, 1992; Skolnikoff, 1993; Goldberg, 1994; Hoffman, 1994) influenced by, and impacting on, both participants. While this view has become a mainstream belief in America only in the last decade, the idea that the practice of analysis has a therapeutic effect on the analyst is not new. In response to Glover's 1940 survey investigating analysts' views on psychoanalytic practice, a majority of analysts considered the dominant effect of analysis on the analyst to be therapeutic. It was recognized that in the analytic situation was continuous stimulation of conflict for the analyst; therefore, most analysts assumed that there would be temporary exacerbation of conflict that would require self-analytic work. Glover termed this effect “countertransference therapy,” which occurred for different reasons for different individuals (p. 79).
