Concordant and Complementary Countertransference: A Clarification

Heinrich Racker (1957) contributed greatly to our understanding of countertransference in a number of respects, including his distinction between concordant and complementary countertransference identifications. Like Helene Deutsch (1926), Racker was mostly concerned with the complementary countertransference because he identified the concordant with empathy. But concordant countertransference identification, when it is relatively unconscious, may disturb empathy as much as relatively unconscious complementary countertransference. Both may enhance empathy and understanding when they are relatively conscious and the object of the analyst's self-reflection. Several clinical vignettes are discussed to illustrate this point. If, as I claim, Racker was mistaken in associating the concordant countertransference with empathy, why has this error been perpetuated in our literature for half a century instead of being recognized and corrected?