The transfer is defined as “psychoanalytic term that refers to the displacement of the affection of one person to another. Patterns of feeling and behavior that originally experimented with the important figures in the childhood move or linked to individuals in current relationships of the person (for example, a psychotherapist).
(The person reacts as if outside a be important from the past who is responsible). Transfer reactions can be positive or negative.” The positive transfer is defined as “transfer of positive feelings about other relationships prior to the relationship between the patient and the therapist”. While the negative transfer is referred to as “Feelings of hostility that a patient transferred from earlier its relationship with the therapist relations”. Finally, Sarandon defines the countertransference as “Psychoanalytic term that refers to the emotional reactions of the therapist to the patient”.
The countertransference can be analyzed from two concepts; the first is restricted because it is considered as produced by neurotic conflicts of the analyst that spoil or turban the therapeutic process. The other trial covers a broad concept that underpins countertransference to all emotional states that has analyst within the treatment should be.
But here is where we need to understand and differentiate how much of what happens to the analyst within the treatment depends on the patient’s, the same analyst and finally the relationship of both. The study of these three factors mentioned above can be considered for an objective analysis. Within this analysis should be explored so what happens to the patient in the process as the own emotions and the place is located and the way in which part of such process.
From the point of view of Racker what analyst interpreted depends not only of his theories but also interaction with your analysis. Being so that the countertransference you can be considered as a part of the interaction of the analista-paciente, within the analytical process and that giving it a proper use can work with favorable results in the session.
Not wanting to say that the analyst will take the role of patient and the patient’s analyst already at that time, what would happen is that not is being carried out a countertransference of analyst but a transfer to the patient, because of the anguish that can have the analyst and do not rely on other tools for handling of that situation.
Transference vs Countertransference
The study of the transferencia-contratransferencia is associated with an idea which considers psychoanalysis as a method to know deeply the relation of object between patient and analyst. Once it can clearly develop the countertransference can be an analysis where the relationship deepens what the patient is doing to make feel the analyst and much information that is the same that takes place outside of the session and that the patient manages to produce people that relates this take of the countertransference.
To establish a relationship, memories or emotional echo that awakens in us the interpersonal relationship. Called transfer when we refer to the patient, and countertransference when we refer to the professional. Transfer would be to feel sympathy for someone who we know for the first time simply because it looks like a close friend. A patient may feel antipathy by a doctor because his mother authoritarian.
When the professional note this antipathy and feels moved to also respond with antipathy, we speak of countertransference. Although the examples we have spoken of sympathies and antipathies concept is open to all kinds of emotions and feelings.
Since my beginning as a Social work student there is a theme arising recurrently in different situations countertransference and transference in social work , and whose importance has grown as I progress through career training. I always arises as a question: do we mean when we speak of “the distance”? I refer to the distance between the Professional (in this case the Social worker) and those with which it is involved.
The issue of distance is one of the many theoretical inputs that are studied in different areas of education; in particular, those that relate specifically to the intervention or pre-vocational practical workshops. For example, in level of intervention II, which refers to the intervention groups, the referral concept was presented as one of the aspects of the psychological attitude that should have a professional acting as an observer of a group in order to analyze it in its operation, distribution of roles, organization, etc.
In this sense, Marta Manigot 1 argues that the “optimal distance” is the opportunity to include resonances are not confused with the group to increase the understanding of this and get it involves an exercise. Your search oscillates between two poles: the excessive distance as distant look that clog and impoverishes the understanding and lack of distance, which implies such an identification with the group in which the resonances produced imprison and estranged the gaze and understanding.
In addition, Ruth Teubal, (Professor of the A2K), exposes, reinforcing what is expressed by the cited author, that the optimal distance is a construction for which the observer must be placed the sufficiently close in the group to allow you to understand it but not confused, taking care of not straying too far as to disconnect from the group.
In practice, my first experience with this question of the distance took place starting with the pre-professional level 2 workshop.
These practices were developed in the field of street children and I must admit that, at first, the theme concentrated much of my attention. The impact that produced me confront this problem first at Center Santa Catalina district Constitution was great. Feelings of anger and pain for something that shouldn’t happen but that is real and power exacerbated by starting to intervene. However, I always had the feeling that hurrying would not be a good counselor. Later it would include the reasons with theoretical foundation.
On various occasions to analyze practice in workshops, the topic of distance appeared to “warning mode” teaching about how it interfere appraisingly at intervention, the anger, the complaints or frustrations that arise to unexpected or unforeseen events that change the results expected of professional actions or against the same harshness of the problem itself.
Also about the dangers of “put the body” or excessive emotional commitment; This “stay glued” to the situation, if we think how difficult that can be overcome, for example, the image of a child homeless or abused social work transference countertransference .
Come me here the first questions: as a profession is exercised (and I mean any of them) without passion? We can measure it, contain it? Or should I say “we” measure it, contain it to act professionally. How do you play the objectivity and subjectivity in the professional intervention? How to balance heart and reason?