Depending on which tradition you came up in, that feeling is either the most important data in the room or a distraction from the actual work. This is one of the many splits and confusions in our field that confuse therapists and hurt patient care. So what do we do about counter-transference?

Though some schools of psychoanalysis have matured into focusing on "intersubjective" aspects of therapy, many still treat it as treatment "contamination." Much of the empirical literature has spent decades treating it as therapist error to be minimized. Some manualized approaches barely discuss it at all, and a few treat sustained attention to it as self-indulgent, even iatrogenic. To make matters worse, there isn't even widespread agreement about how to define the term!

This course will begin with a historical survey of the concept of counter-transference, how it's evolved, and the lines of the competing definitions. We'll look at where the classical, totalist, and relational definitions actually diverge, what the process and outcome research does and doesn't support, and how models like Control Mastery Theory and Experiential Dynamic Therapies put therapist reaction to work inside case formulation rather than leaving it as private experiences to be managed. Substantial attention goes to the practical problem underneath all of it: how to examine your own reactions with enough honesty to learn something about the person you're working with, and practical steps to integrate it into the formulation. Critically, we'll integrate socio-cultural factors, reactions, and ideas to help refine the formulation process and make it more nuanced and attentive to patient experiences. Finally, we'll spend time reviewing case material to see how this looks in practice.

You'll leave with a working sense of when your reaction belongs in the room, when it belongs in consultation or your own therapy, and when the honest answer is to set it down and get back to work.