ABSTRACT
Given the pervasive and inevitable nature of countertransference, an important question arises as to how to manage it. For the sake of clarity, it is important to be explicit about what we mean by countertransference “management.” To the extent that something interferes with the process of therapy or the attainment of therapeutic goals, that thing-whatever it is-needs to be controlled or regulated as best one is able. On the other hand, if something has the potential to facilitate the process and enhance the outcome of therapy, one should judiciously cultivate it and use it as an ally in one’s clinical work. This, in essence, is what we mean by managing countertransference. Consistent with the view of countertransference as a “double helix” (Epstein & Feiner, 1979), with its prospective vices and virtues intertwined, successful countertransference management requires that therapists be alert both to acting out in detrimental, unintended ways and to acquiring clinically significant insights as a result of their reactions to patients.
