IJSP Number 8, 2026

International Journal of Supervision in Psychotherapy, Number 8, 2026 Page | 19 client ’ s intrapsychic process, it is essential that the psychotherapist be introspective about their own feelings and fantasies — and to then use their phenomenological experience to empathically respond to the client ’ s subjective experience. Greenberg and Mitchell [10] defined countertransference as “an inevitable product of the interaction between the patient and the analyst rather than a simple interference stemming from the analyst ’ s own infantile drive-related conflicts” (p. 389). This is what Stolorow, Brandschaft, and Atwood [11] described as “intersubjective” — the melding together of two unique perspectives. Sandor Ferenczi [12] was the first psychoanalyst to propose that countertransference was the psychotherapist ’ s identification with the client ’ s unconscious communication, and therefore, countertransference constituted an essential component in understanding the client ’ s relational history and inner life. Ferenczi declared that the psychotherapist ’ s feelings of tenderness, patience, and concern were the core of the relationship between therapist and client. However, classical psychoanalysis continued to characterize countertransference as the analyst ’ s transference of their own internal conflicts into their relationship with the client [13]. Ronald Fairbairn [14] elaborated on Ferenczi ’ s ideas when he called for “ genuine emotional contact” (p. 16) in the practice of psychotherapy — a form of intimacy from the psychotherapist to the client that provides the client with a new, transformative relationship. Harry Guntrip underscored Fairbairn ’ s relational perspective when he wrote, “ It is the psychotherapist ’ s responsibility to discover what kind of parental relationship the patient needs in order to get better. . .. If the psychiatrist cannot love his clients in that way, he had better give up psychotherapy” [15]. MY COUNTERTRANSFERENCE: IMPEDIMENT OR BENEFICIAL? When Loraine came for her first psychotherapy session, I was repulsed by her. Over the phone she was pleasant but when she arrived, I discovered that she was slovenly dressed with unwashed hair that smelled like mold. Her teeth were obviously in need of dental repair. I wished that she had not come to my office. Yet, in our initial session I sensed that she was serious about improving her life which stimulated me to commit myself to being fully present with her. During the next several weeks I became fascinated by her intellectual brilliance, her articulate language, and her frequent quotations of literature but, at the same time, I could not escape my sense of repulsion. Listening to her was interesting but I did not want her to sit close to me. I wished that I could hold my breath for an hour. I certainly did not want her to ask me for a good-bye hug. Disgust may be too strong a word to describe my feelings but I certainly had a strong urge to turn away from her. Staying in contact with Loraine was a constant struggle. I was committed to doing an effective psychotherapy with her but I was conflicted: I had both a sense of repulsion and intense tender concern. We were many months into the psychotherapy before Loraine allowed me to inquire about her childhood relationship with her mother. When she talked about her childhood she reported stories of perpetual neglect, such as wearing the same clothes for a few weeks at a time and eating the same rice soup every day because her mother “ didn ’ t like to cook”. “Our apartment was always a complete mess, everything was dirty”. She reported that notes were sent home from both kindergarten and elementary school asking