The increased acceptance of medication in psychoanalysis has occurred with too little consideration of possible complications. The potentially adverse psychological effects and disintegrative aspects of this important technical modification require further examination. While the use of phenomenologically defined diagnostic criteria provides valuable guidance to the clinician, the decision to include pharmacotherapy in a psychoanalysis must be understood also as a transference-countertransference enactment. The analyst's attitude toward pharmacotherapy is an essential element in some defensive and gratifying enactments, resistances that can interfere with psychoanalytic processes. Clinical material is presented illustrating narcissistic and perverse resistances that might be facilitated by analysts' attitudes toward pharmacotherapy, attitudes often tacitly communicated in decisions to use combined treatment.

No abstract

The author asserts that the analyst's theory, personal and/or academic, is an important source of countertransference which complicates our traditional understanding of the analyst's emotional responses as being constructed from a mix of his transferences and the patient's effects on him. From this perspective, theory--because it has no intrinsic relevance to the essential phenomena of individual analytic processes--may be a confounding, as well as a necessary, factor in clinical work. Although the analyst's theory might be conceptualized as a component of his personality that shapes his emotional reactions to a patient, the author believes that there is a valuable increment of conceptual clarity and additional clinical utility to thinking about a more direct role of theory in the process of countertransference formation. He uses aspects of the clinical analysis of narcissistic resistances to illustrate how some theories might predispose an analyst to confounding unconscious enactments by generating either positive or negative countertransferences which can be used defensively by the patient and/or analyst. He also illustrates how, in some contexts, an analyst's theory might attenuate potentially informative countertransference reactions and interfere in this way with the analyst's apprehension of the patient's psychic functioning. Finally the author addresses the importance of 'fit' between an analyst's working theory and a patient's psychopathology, and considers implications of his ideas for psychoanalytic training and practice.

The author believes that unconscious sexual excitement in the transference and countertransference is an especially problematic aspect of the analysis of perverse character pathology and that perverse sexual gratifi cation deserves a more prominent position in the clinical theory of analyzing perversion than that which has been assigned tacitly through analysts' routine focus on the defensive and destructive dynamics of perversion. He presents clinical material from the analysis of a perverse patient that illustrates the role of excitement in the transference perversion established in this analysis; and he asserts that gratifying perverse enactments occurring in the transference perversion can appear not only as conscious or unconscious excitement in the transference but also, at times most clearly, as the analyst's excitement. The author suggests that using a clinical theory that supports the analyst in understanding his excited responses as perverse countertransferences‐i.e. evoked excitement complementary to the sexual component of a perverse transference‐will assist him in locating and thinking about gratifying, perverse excitement in the transference where it is most usefully analyzed. Finally, he discusses some of the reasons why analysts might deny, suppress or otherwise avoid perverse countertransferences and in so doing contribute to sustaining perverse resistances.