The third stage of positive transference is engaged as the therapist seeks to meet the major challenge of extracting repressed elements and to “bring about dramatically complete and affective abreactive eruptions.” (Reich, 1972, p. 128) For both Freud and Reich, these “eruptions” involve strong emotional expressions—often expressions of grief, anger, fear or longing.  A dream is interpreted in a manner that produces strong, emotionally laden memories of childhood. A critical interaction with a significant person in the patient’s life produces the content for an insight-filled interpretation by the therapist regarding the emotions accompanying (and often directing) this interaction.

None of this can occur without a strong positive transference. If this transference is not present, then the “repressed elements” become threats and the abreactions become unacceptable for the patient. Later, object relations theorists would suggest that the positive transference provides a “container” for the anxiety induced in the therapy session. Without this container, the anxiety spills out and intensifies. With the container in place, anxiety can be successfully “metabolized” (as I described in the second essay of this series).

What about negative transference? At first, it is engaged by the Ego as defense against the therapeutic engagement itself.  (Reich, 1972, p. 130) Breaking the basic rules is a strong expression of the negative transference. Later, the negative transference relates directly to the patients’ character armor. It is fully understandable that a patient might develop a negative relationship with his therapist, ff the patient is threatened with the loss of his armor and with suddenly becoming naked in a world that intends to do harm. The Tin Man might want to retain his armor—even if the therapist is trying to heal his heart.  Reich (1972, p. 337) even ruminates briefly on the potential existence of Freud’s death instinct. This instinct might push against life (and the elimination of armor and neurotic symptoms) as well as encourage the patient to view his therapist as the “enemy.’

Reich also touches briefly on the issue of counter-transference—the moments in therapy when the analyst’s own psychic dynamics enters into therapeutic interaction. Reich (1972, p.147) offers the following comments:

Without going into the whole complex of questions, we will illustrate the problem of counter-transference with a few typical examples. It is usually possible to recognize by the way the case is proceeding whether and in which area the attitude of the analyst is defective, i.e., disturbed by his own psychological problems. The fact that some cases never produce an affective negative transference is to be ascribed not so much to the patient’s block as to that of the analyst. The analyst who has not resolved the repression of his own aggressive tendencies will be incapable of accomplishing this work satisfactorily in his patients and might even develop an affective unwillingness to form an accurate intellectual appraisal of the importance of the analysis of the negative transference. His repressed aggression will cause the analyst to regard as a provocation the patient’s aggression which has to be roused. He will either overlook negative impulses in the patient or obstruct their manifestation in some way. He might even reinforce the repression of the aggression by exaggerated friendliness toward the patient. Patients quickly sense such attitudes on the part of the analyst and thoroughly exploit them in warding off drives. An affect block or an excessively solicitous bearing on the part of the analyst is the most telling sign that he is warding off his own aggression.