ABSTRACT
In the existing literature on countertransference, the interval between Freud’s (1911–1915) Papers on Technique and the resurgence of interest in countertransference in the 1950s tends to be spoken of as a kind of latency period for the development of countertransference theory. Langs (1918), in his encyclopedic collection of papers, Classics in Psychoanalytic Technique, writes that after Freud’s dismissive comments on countertransference, there “was therefore a rather long hiatus, during which little consideration was given to this subject in the psychoanalytic literature” (p. 137). Given the apparent accuracy of this statement—virtually nothing was said about countertransference in the published journals and texts during those forty years—it might seem sensible to move directly to the current literature on the countertransference. This intermediate period in psychoanalytic history, however, is more than just a fallow one and to ignore it would be a mistake. In a field formed from the clinical encounter, this historical material is our data. I argue that this record demonstrates the untenability of abstinence. The clinical papers from this time, even when not speaking overtly of the countertransference, reveal the struggle analysts faced in trying to make sense of their emotional reactions to the analytic encounter. These papers chart the technical difficulties and clinical failures that exerted evolutionary pressure on the analytic method. They reveal that patients were not readily cured of their difficulties and that they required more than interpretation and abstinence on the part of the analyst. What is missing in the current literature on countertransference is a discussion of how the clinical events during the time between Freud’s Papers on Technique (1911–1915) and the 1950s propelled psychoanalysis toward the eventual recognition and acceptance of countertransference.
