Rescue Fantasies in Child
Therapy: Countertransference/
Transference Enactments
Kerry L. Malawista, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT: When the focus of the child treatment is on the therapist
being a ‘‘good’’ object, this can accentuate a possible countertransference dif-
ficulty of the therapist becoming the protector of the child from the ‘‘bad’’
object. This countertransference can often resonate with rescue fantasies in
the child. This paper will explore the topic of rescue fantasies in child treat-
ment, while addressing the issue of coinciding fantasies existing uncon-
sciously in both the therapist and child, leading to their enactment. A case
of a nine-year old boy is presented which demonstrates how interpretation
and resolution of rescue fantasies can lead to a deepening of the treatment.
KEY WORDS: Rescue Fantasies; Countertransference; Enactments.
Introduction
Transference and its ubiquitous counterpart, therapist countertrans-
ference, are historical cornerstones of psychoanalytic treatment with
adults. In contrast, the early days of child psychoanalysis, beginning
in the 1930’s, focused less on transference and countertransference,
but instead emphasized the ‘‘real relationship’’ between patient and
therapist (Freud, 1936). Due to the immaturity of the child, transfer-
ence was considered secondary to the ‘‘real’’ positive alliance with
the ‘‘good object’’ of the therapist. By de-emphasizing transference, it
Kerry L. Malawista is a Training and Supervising Analyst, The New York Freudian
Society and Teaching Faculty, George Washington University, D.C. for psy. D. Pro-
gram.
Address for correspondence to Kerry L. Malawista, 9421 Thrush Lane Potomac, MD
20814; e-mail: [email protected]
The author would like to thank Dr. Peter Malawista and Dr. Aimee Nover for their
input and editing of this manuscript.
Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, Vol. 21, No. 4, August 2004 (� 2004)
373 � 2004 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
is inevitable cohort, therapist countertransference, also remained
relatively unexplored; both in the literature and in the consulting
room.
This early view of child therapy and analysis was based on the
understanding that the process of identification with important peo-
ple is much greater in children than adults; and that since the child
was living in the present with the significant objects of the past,
therapeutic exploration could confine itself to the ‘‘real and current’’
objects, the child’s parents. The therapist could then serve as a
‘‘new, and real, and good object’’ for the child. Yet alongside the ‘‘real
object of the present’’ is the inevitable transference representation of
the therapist, distorted by the child’s past and current needs and
conflicts. When the focus of the child treatment is based on the ther-
apist as the ‘‘real and good’’ object, and parents as ‘‘real and bad’’
objects, a possible (if not probable) therapist/patient countertransfer-
ence/transference configuration can manifest as correspondi.
Interactive Powerpoint_How to Master effective communication
Rescue Fantasies in ChildTherapy CountertransferenceTran.docx
1. Rescue Fantasies in Child
Therapy: Countertransference/
Transference Enactments
Kerry L. Malawista, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT: When the focus of the child treatment is on the
therapist
being a ‘‘good’’ object, this can accentuate a possible
countertransference dif-
ficulty of the therapist becoming the protector of the child from
the ‘‘bad’’
object. This countertransference can often resonate with rescue
fantasies in
the child. This paper will explore the topic of rescue fantasies
in child treat-
ment, while addressing the issue of coinciding fantasies existing
uncon-
sciously in both the therapist and child, leading to their
enactment. A case
of a nine-year old boy is presented which demonstrates how
interpretation
and resolution of rescue fantasies can lead to a deepening of the
treatment.
KEY WORDS: Rescue Fantasies; Countertransference;
Enactments.
Introduction
Transference and its ubiquitous counterpart, therapist
countertrans-
2. ference, are historical cornerstones of psychoanalytic treatment
with
adults. In contrast, the early days of child psychoanalysis,
beginning
in the 1930’s, focused less on transference and
countertransference,
but instead emphasized the ‘‘real relationship’’ between patient
and
therapist (Freud, 1936). Due to the immaturity of the child,
transfer-
ence was considered secondary to the ‘‘real’’ positive alliance
with
the ‘‘good object’’ of the therapist. By de-emphasizing
transference, it
Kerry L. Malawista is a Training and Supervising Analyst, The
New York Freudian
Society and Teaching Faculty, George Washington University,
D.C. for psy. D. Pro-
gram.
Address for correspondence to Kerry L. Malawista, 9421 Thrush
Lane Potomac, MD
20814; e-mail: [email protected]
The author would like to thank Dr. Peter Malawista and Dr.
Aimee Nover for their
input and editing of this manuscript.
Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, Vol. 21, No. 4,
August 2004 (� 2004)
373 � 2004 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
is inevitable cohort, therapist countertransference, also
3. remained
relatively unexplored; both in the literature and in the
consulting
room.
This early view of child therapy and analysis was based on the
understanding that the process of identification with important
peo-
ple is much greater in children than adults; and that since the
child
was living in the present with the significant objects of the past,
therapeutic exploration could confine itself to the ‘‘real and
current’’
objects, the child’s parents. The therapist could then serve as a
‘‘new, and real, and good object’’ for the child. Yet alongside
the ‘‘real
object of the present’’ is the inevitable transference
representation of
the therapist, distorted by the child’s past and current needs and
conflicts. When the focus of the child treatment is based on the
ther-
apist as the ‘‘real and good’’ object, and parents as ‘‘real and
bad’’
objects, a possible (if not probable) therapist/patient
countertransfer-
ence/transference configuration can manifest as corresponding
(and
correspondingly stubborn) rescue fantasies which can impede
the
process and progress of the work within the therapeutic dyad.
This paper will explore the topic of rescue fantasies in child
treat-
ment, while addressing the issue of coinciding fantasies existing
unconsciously in both the therapist and child, leading to their
enact-
4. ment.
Rescue Fantasies
Early psychoanalytic literature traced the rescue fantasy, the
wish
to save and rescue the woman, to vicissitudes of the Oedipus
com-
plex, and studied it particularly in its relationship to the theme
of
incest (Freud, 1910). Ferenczi (1919) was the first to describe a
par-
allel phenomenon in analysis, when ‘‘the doctor has
unconsciously
made himself his patient’s patron or knight.’’ Fifty years later
the
term rescue fantasy was directly applied to analysts by
Greenacre
(1966). Esman (1987) provides an excellent review of the
literature
on rescue fantasies. He highlights Freud’s early emphasis on the
‘‘rescue of the fallen woman,’’ and the transformation of the
‘‘whore’’
into the ‘‘Madonna.’’
Contrary to Freud’s Oedipal focus (an underlying wish to rescue
mother from father) of rescue fantasies is Berman (1997) who
emphasizes the object of rescue as a projected version of the
res-
cuer’s own disavowed vulnerability, and the danger from which
374 CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL
rescue is needed—as a split-off version of the rescuer’s
5. aggression.
Similarly, Grinstein (1957) points out that a significant element
in
some rescue fantasies is hostility toward the object. The rescue
fan-
tasy is a way to undo the unconscious hostile wishes. Sterba
(1940,
p. 505) states ‘‘we investigate here the rescue fantasy for its
aggres-
sive content although the life-preserving, love-affirming
attitude of
the individual producing the fantasy towards the object to be
res-
cued appears to contradict the prevalence of any aggressive
inten-
tion.’’ Thus, there is projection of hostility and then the
reaction
formation against it. When the expected change or ‘‘rescue’’
does not
occur, helplessness and/or anger may ensue.
Rescue fantasies can and should be understood in the context of
the family romance. Children often express the idea that they
have
been adopted, or the wish/fear of being kidnapped, and how
wonder-
ful life would be if he could be rescued by their ‘‘real parents.’’
Freud’s (1909) formulation of the family romance is the child’s
rejec-
tion of his own parents as his real ones, and the fantasy that he
is
the child of other parents who are of nobler origins than his own
par-
ents. Freud makes the point that the child endows these new
parents
with the idealized characteristics of his early childhood parents
6. as a
way to deal with the natural disappointments and apparent
failures
of his real parents. Deutsch (1945, p. 416) was the first to
describe in
detail how the family romance is a way for the child to deal
with
ambivalence towards the parent. These fantasies are evident in
most
children and may be even more powerful in children who were
adopted, since the presence of other ‘‘real’’ parents is a fact.
Both the
rescue fantasy and the family romance are means of regaining
the
idealized omnipotent parent of early childhood (Frosch, 1959).
The treatment situation of children and adolescents, by its
nature,
provides an atmosphere where rescue fantasies would be
prevalent.
They seek in the therapist the idealized parent of the family
romance. The child and therapist’s fantasies may become
complemen-
tary, where the child wishes to be rescued and the therapist
wishes
to rescue the child. Bornstein (1948, p. 696) has said ‘‘no one
in con-
tinuous contact with children can escape the danger of
regression’’
which would include countertransference enactments such as
corre-
sponding rescue fantasies. The term countertransference can be
used
in many ways. For this paper, I am referring to Jacob’s (1986)
defini-
tion, ‘‘influence on [the therapists] understanding and technique
7. that
stem from both his transference and his emotional responses to
the
patient’s transferences (p. 290).
KERRY L. MALAWISTA 375
Countertransference
For many in the ‘‘healing professions’’ the choice of being a
therapist
may be based on a powerful unconscious rescue fantasy. Volkan
(1985) states his belief that the rescue fantasy is a universal
deter-
minant for therapists in their choice of career. Bernstein and
Glenn
(1978, p. 380) make the point that the ‘‘wish to be a child
analyst
frequently stems from the analyst’s maternal identification and
an
unconscious wish to have a child.’’
Frankiel (1985) wrote an interesting paper that looks at how the
wish for a baby in early childhood and the wish to rescue can be
revived by the intrinsic structure of the child treatment
situation,
arousing disruptive countertransference fantasies in some
analysts,
anxious fantasies and wishes in some parents, and potentiating
riv-
alry between analyst and parent in some cases. She gives
examples
from fairy tales and mythology that show this repeated theme of
the
8. wish to rescue or steal a child and how these fantasies are
replicated
in both the child and analyst during treatment. Bernstein and
Glenn
(1978, p. 385) caution that ‘‘however benign the analysts
intention,
an enactment of an adoption fantasy is inimical to the real
purpose
of analysis.’’ Anthony (1986) states that the countertransference
gen-
erated in analytic work with children is more intense and
pervasive
than any encountered in adult work. ‘‘The analyst may take the
child as a transference object, or react to the child’s
transference to
him as manifested erotically or aggressively; or he may identify
with
the child’s parents and become controlling or oversolicitous. or
he
may find incestuous fears and fantasies stirring as a result of
direct
body contact with the child’’ (p. 77).
For the child patient, as well as with adult patients, the
experience
of the therapist as available and nonjudgmental is, of course,
gratify-
ing and therapeutic. Since this experience can be so satisfying
to both
participants, the therapist can focus too quickly on the external
reality
of the child’s problematic relationship with his or her parent,
deflect-
ing the child’s attention from the transference. Chused (1988)
states
‘‘The real dependency needs of all children..., their potential
9. for
growth, their tremendous vulnerability to external forces, and
the
wish to have them grow successfully with minimum suffering,
are all
powerful seductive forces which lead to countertransference
interfer-
ences with the development of a transference neurosis’’ (p. 79).
A therapist’s countertransference can take many different
forms.
A therapist, upon hearing of parents that sound unempathic, or
376 CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL
seem to cause suffering in the child, may have the fantasy of
rescu-
ing the child from the ‘‘villain who caused the illness’’
(Gillman,
1992, p. 283). The therapist can become overidentified with the
child
and unable to see the intrapsychic components of the child’s
difficul-
ties. Bernstein and Glenn (1978) point out that the analyst’s
‘‘own
oedipal involvements are often revived. As a result, he
experiences
an inner pressure to identify with his patient’’ (p. 379). The
thera-
pist may enact a competitive countertransference toward the
par-
ents. This form of countertransference, where the therapist has
an
unconscious competition with the parents may be particularly
10. pow-
erful when it coincides with a child’s own rescue fantasy that
the
therapist would be a better parent to the child.
Greenacre (1966) portrays the analyst’s rescue fantasy and the
analyst’ self-image as substitute parents: ‘‘In such rescue
operations,
the analyst’s aggression may be allocated to those relatives or
thera-
pists who have previously been in contact with the patient and
are,
in fact or in fantasy, contributors to his disturbances. The
analyst
then becomes the savior through whom the analysand is to be
launched’’ (p. 760). The danger of grandiosity and omniscience
with
our patients is present when there is a mutual rescue fantasy
enact-
ment that remains unconscious, or is denied.
Enactments
The concept of countertransference enactments was introduced
in
the literature by Jacob’s (1986). Chused (1997, p. 265) states
that an
‘‘enactment is an unconsciously motivated behavior of the
analyst
(verbal or nonverbal) provoked (usually unconsciously) by the
patient.’’ Chused makes the point that in essence the concept of
enactment joins together the concepts of ‘‘countertransference’’
and
‘‘acting in’’; but adds the component that it was a ‘‘jointly
created
interaction’’ (p. 265) fueled by unconscious psychic forces in
11. both
patient and analyst. The concept of enactment recognizes that
trans-
ference may be represented, not only on the verbally symbolized
level, but also on the enacted level in the treatment. Chused
(1991)
distinguishes an enactment from acting out, in that the former
involves the analyst as a participant rather than as an observer.
‘‘Enactments occur when an attempt to actualize a transference
fan-
tasy elicits a countertransference response’’ (p. 629).
KERRY L. MALAWISTA 377
The countertransference that occurs with rescue fantasies could
be thought of as an enactment when the behavior of the
therapist
has been distorted from its conscious intent by unconscious
motiva-
tions. Enactments involve the actualization of an unconscious
fan-
tasy in the treatment. Child therapy and analysis would be
fertile
ground for enactments, since much of the child’s
communication is
through nonverbal means and child therapy involves an active
inter-
personal relationship. Also, by virtue of the child’s natural
immatu-
rity, the therapist does perform some caretaking tasks, e.g.,
tying a
shoe. Norman (1989) writes about how the child is bombarding
the
analyst with urgent demands which can reach beyond the
12. analyst’s
defenses and actualize those infantile phase-specific problems
and
feelings that were left behind. There is a pull for actualization
of
countertransference feelings in the therapist, which can lead to
an
enactment of a rescue fantasy in treatment.
Case
The following is an illustration of a session that followed
several
months of twice-a-week psychotherapy around a child’s rescue
fan-
tasies. The work was able to proceed productively, partly
because I
became conscious of a rescue fantasy with this boy, and was
able
to take extra care to not allow it to become enacted. Early in the
treatment, I had a dream in which I was taking Tommy on an
out-
ing with my own children. I recognized in the dream an
explicitly
represented wish to rescue Tommy from his parents whom I
had,
at times, perceived through Tommy’s communications as
possibly
somewhat punitive and, at least at times, unempathic. By
analyz-
ing this countertransference, I was able to understand the
personal
meaning in myself and begin to empathize with the mother and
her feelings of frustration and guilt for feeling like a ‘‘bad’’
mother
to Tommy, The mother had described wishing she only had one
13. child, her daughter Jane, not Tommy, who she felt was difficult
to
handle.
Tommy is an 8-year old boy currently in the third grade. The
ther-
apist (author) is a 40-year old mother of two children. Tommy
came
for treatment because of a history of ADD (treated with Ritalin)
and
troubles at home and school related to his inattention and
impulsiv-
ity. His parents also expressed concerns about his fear of dogs.
Tommy has one younger sister Jane, who is five. The parents
378 CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL
described Tommy as a caring older brother with only mild
feelings of
rivalry towards his sister.
During the early months of treatment Tommy repeatedly played
out a rescue fantasy of a man saving a girl from a multitude of
calamities: a burning building, an attacking dinosaur, or a car
that
had crashed. Gillman (1992) terms these types of fantasies as
‘‘ambivalent rescue fantasies.’’ Gradually this fantasy play in
the
hour switched to one in which there is an older brother rescuing
a
younger sister from similar dangers. Tommy would frequently
put
the sister into dangerous situations in which the older, stronger
brother would need to rescue her. One favorite scenario was a
14. burn-
ing house and the big brother would jump on the fire truck,
climb
the ladder, and pull the little sister to safety.
With Tommy one could see what Sterba (1940) described, that
the
object of the rescue fantasy is very often the person against
whom
there existed aggression.
After several months of addressing this concern and reworking
his
feelings Tommy became conscious of the reaction formation.
Gradu-
ally his hostility became outwardly evident and he spoke openly
of
the hate and rivalry he felt towards his sister.
The following is an excerpt from a recent hour that followed
sev-
eral months of interpreting Tommy’s rescue fantasies in the dis-
placement, and the ambivalence and the reaction formation
against
hostility towards his sister, inherent in his fantasies. For
example
we were able to comment that he played out a fantasy of
rescuing a
‘‘little sister’’ from a fire after the siblings had a fight.
In this hour, Tommy entered the room and immediately took out
a game of checkers. For the first time he began to make up rules
as
he went along, all of which were in his favor. As the game
preceded
the rules became increasingly more wanton to the point that his
15. pieces could jump my pieces anywhere on the board and in any
direction. After a complicated jump he would laugh with
pleasure.
I made several comments such as ‘‘You’re pieces are sure
getting
mine,’’ ‘‘My pieces don’t have a chance,’’ ‘‘Seems exciting to
be able
to make up the rules. You can do anything.’’ Tommy replied
‘‘It’s
great. I’m sick of rules! Everywhere I’m told what to do. Can’t
do
this or that (while imitating a grown-up voice).’’
Therapist: That sounds like a grown up voice.
Tommy: Yeah, when I go to bed, when I can watch TV, when I
can hold the guinea pig.
KERRY L. MALAWISTA 379
(With his voice rising in anger, Tommy continued to describe
all
the things that he is told he can and can’t do, things which are
nota-
bly proscribed by parents. In the moment, I found myself
feeling a
certain sense of pride in my work, which I recognized as related
to
the rescue fantasy I had previously recognized having towards
Tommy and his parents.)
Therapist: Seems like it makes you pretty mad when you’re told
what you can and can’t do.
16. Tommy: I get really mad. You know when my uncle comes to
visit.
He always wants his way. He’s the one always like that! He is
hard
to be around. My Mom gets really mad at him, she loves her
brother
but he makes her furious.
Therapist: How can you tell?
Tommy: You can see it in her face. He drives her crazy. She
tries
not to show it, but you can see how mad she is getting. (demon-
strates her face). She could kill him she looks so mad. (More
about
the uncle). But he knows she still loves him.
Therapist: I guess he’s glad to know she still loves him, cause
he
could worry when she looks so mad that she doesn’t love him.
Tommy: Yeah, he might think that, but he knows she does. It’s
her brother. You always love your brother. But I think after he’s
there a while she wants him to leave.
Therapist: She gets so mad she’d like him to leave.
Tommy: Yeah, cause he always wants his way. He can be such
a pain. (He is talking with an annoyed voice about his uncle.
Gradually he begins to talk about other hypothetical brothers
and
sisters).
Tommy: My sister drives me crazy too. I could kill Jane. I’d
like to
kick her in the butt. (This is the first time Tommy has expressed
17. anger at his sister. As he made this statement he looked
cautiously at
my face to see that I didn’t react disapprovingly. He continued
with
a long list of things Jane does that make him mad, especially
that
she won’t let him touch her guinea pig when he doesn’t want to
play
with his own pig). But I know how to get back at her. I say I am
going to sit on it or strangle it, because she makes me so mad. I
say
those things cause it really upsets her. I say ‘‘I’ll kill Silky.’’
Therapist: Then you feel so powerful to watch her get upset,
rather then her upsetting you.
Tommy: Yeah, I hold it up (demonstrates) and say I won’t give
it
to you. I can torment her back since she torments me. I hold the
gui-
nea pig up by her neck, like this. She is so annoying. I can’t
stand
380 CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL
her. (At this point I considered wondering with him about how
the
guinea pig might feel, but I decided to wait to not inhibit his
anger
or increase his guilt).
Therapist: When you get so mad and frustrated you want to find
a
way to be strong and get back at her.
18. Tommy: Yeah (As he continues talking he begins to take out the
collection of trucks, including the frequently used fire truck of
his res-
cue fantasies).
Tommy: Where do you get these? I never see these any-
where—these really are great trucks. (He continues with more
anger
and grievances at Jane; I noticed here the shift in my thinking
where
I no longer felt pride in being the superior parent who supplies
‘‘great
trucks’’ to play with). I think I saw one of these when I was
three.
Yeah, I think it was this one; that was when Jane was born. I
think
Jane gave me one of these trucks when she was born. They are
cool.
Had real lug nuts (describes many details about the truck, and
links
it so nicely to the ‘‘good’’ in his home environment: parents,
sister,
and all).
Therapist: You remember a lot about the truck.
Tommy: I think it was the 1992 one. The truck was from Jane.
Well I guess my Mom actually bought it, but it was from her
when
she was born. I think they also gave me Busy Town, cause I got
her.
Therapist: They bought you something cause Jane was born.
Tommy: Yeah, what a trick. I wanted to bite her I was so mad.
19. Before I got all the attention. I got whatever I wanted. I got way
more as an only child. Now everything has to be fair. I hate fair.
I
don’t want her here. I don’t want it fair. I hate having a sister.
Therapist: Felt like things were spoiled for you when Jane
came.
(This is unusual in our sessions to be speaking directly about
his
feelings, especially towards Jane; previously this material had
been
in the displacement through play, and usually onto the ‘‘bad
parents’’
that Tommy oered up as objects to be rescued from; objects
from
whom I had experienced the urge to rescue him).
Tommy: Yeah, and they don’t take her allowance when she does
something wrong. I hate her. I really hate her. I hate having a
sis-
ter. They kept saying its nice to have a little sister. How lucky I
am (sarcastic laugh). I didn’t want her. I didn’t ask for her. It’s
not
nice. I always wanted a brother though. A brother my exact age.
Always someone to play with. Never be lonely if my friends
aren’t
over. We would like to do all the same things. I’d like that. Or
an
KERRY L. MALAWISTA 381
older brother could help me, teach me things. Even a younger
brother would be okay. I could teach him things. But instead I
got
20. a sister. Instead I got her, Satan’s daughter (laugh). I got that
line
from a movie (describes the movie).
Tommy: Oh Yeah, I got my violin today. I’m going to be in an
orchestra at school. (He tells me who else will be in the
orchestra
and what instrument they will play. He then begins to play with
the
space shuttle).
Tommy: Did you know the space shuttle goes around like this
(shows it straight up spinning; an obviously phallic object) It
has
black tiles all on the bottom so that when it comes back down
into
the atmosphere it won’t burn up. If it didn’t the spaceship and
crew
would burn up. (He describes other safety devices on board)
Therapist: Good to know the engineers put so many things in
place to keep them safe.
Tommy: Yeah. They always replace all 3,047,000 tiles after
each
trip. (more details). My Dad and I are going to go to Florida for
a
space launch. (He gives me exact details of how the trip will
go). Just
me and my Dad.
Therapist: Nice to be just the boys together.
Tommy: Yeah, not my Mom or Jane. It will be great. I like it
with
just my Dad and me.
21. When Tommy came the next session he began telling me about
‘‘Club Friday’’. A club for 9- to 12- year old children at the
recreation
center where they can play games and dance. He stated that he
was
not going to go because his parents and he talked about how he
gets
‘‘revved up’’ at Club Friday and then can’t settle down when he
gets
home and can’t get to sleep.
Tommy: They said if I had good behavior for the whole week I
could get a toy on Sunday. And Club Friday gets me stirred up
and
I can’t calm down. So I decided not to go this week. It was my
deci-
sion.
Therapist: Feels good that you decided.
Tommy: Yeah. Instead my Mom is taking Jane to a party and my
Dad and I are going to have dinner and watch a DVD, The
Mummy.
I don’t think it will be scary this time because I’m older and
I’ve
seen it before so it won’t be scary this time. The toy I’m going
to get
is Cubics Robot (Tommy excitedly described these robots and
who the
‘‘good guys’’ and ‘‘bad guys’’ are and what super abilities they
have.
The rules each robot had to follow became increasingly
confusing to
follow).
22. 382 CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL
Therapist: Must be hard for the good guys to keep track of all
these rules. Sounds like it gets confusing.
Tommy: Yeah, it is. Then the next time I can get something I’m
going to get the other robot so David and I can play it together.
They
can go against each other. (Tommy takes out the Hess trucks
while
he continues to describe the robots fighting).
Therapist: What do they fight about? (Tommy describes evil Dr
K, who is the bad guy and the robot he is going to destroy. Of
course, one could wonder about the transference connection to
Dr.
K and keep this in mind with the material, but not interpret pre-
maturely). He’s cute. Well I guess cute depends on who is the
per-
son saying it (ironically said). For example, I find snakes and
lizards cute (laugh). You know snakes are easy to tame, as long
as
they’re not poisonous. (He tells me facts about snakes). At least
they don’t poop or pee.
Therapist: They don’t poop or pee?
Tommy: Yeah, they don’t have a hole for it to come out. So I
have
no idea how they lay eggs! But I’d want a boy one anyway.
Therapist: Better to stick with boys, easier to understand.
Tommy: Definitely! And boys don’t shed as much either. The
boy
23. snake does the hunting. The mother nurtures the babies for four
months, and then at four months its more like they’re teenagers
and
they go off. But the boy snake can also feed the babies, cause
they
also have what the mother has. Whatever that is! But its kind of
dis-
gusting for a 9-year old boy.
Therapist: Can be kind of confusing for a 9- year old boy,
what’s
different and the same that they have.
Tommy: Yeah. You can learn a lot of this on the Discovery
Chan-
nel. I’m like the only kid in my class that watches different kind
of
shows other then cartoon network. I like shows like Discovery
or
History Channel where you learn stuff. So I like to watch stuff
that’s
interesting. I’m just not a sports kind of guy!
Therapist: Good to know what kind of guy you are, what you
like,
ways that your different then other kids.
Tommy: (looking at a truck) You know this truck (Playing with
the fire truck with ladders; putting the ladders up) You know
this
truck in real life would fall over if it didn’t have these
stabilizers
(demonstrates) These trucks are so heavy...the ladders are so
big
they would literally fall right over. Since the trucks are so long
they
24. have a driver in the back part to do the steering. But they really
are
connected to the front wheel so they could still be turned (again
I
KERRY L. MALAWISTA 383
think, may be some of these restrictive safety devices that
adults come
up with aren’t all bad).
Conclusion
When the focus of treatment with children is based on the thera-
pist as the ‘‘real and good’’ object, and parents as ‘‘real and
bad’’
objects, a therapist/patient countertransference/ transference
con-
figuration can emerge in the form of rescue fantasies within the
therapeutic dyad. This configuration, which I assert here may be
relatively common, may frequently lead to enactments which
can
undermine the effectiveness of our work with children. My
recog-
nition of a wish to be a better mother to Tommy became con-
scious in a dream where he was represented as one of my
children. I recognized the beginning of a mutual
countertransfer-
ence/transference enactment in the material from Tommy’s
hours
in which he was the rescuer of an ‘‘endangered sister.’’ My
awareness of my countertransference allowed me to interpret
Tommy’s displaced rescue fantasies, which in turn brought
about
25. conscious awareness of Tommy’s anger about his sister Jane’s
birth (deepening and furthering the treatment). Together we
became aware his wish to be rid of his sister was heightened by
his fear that his aggressive behavior at home somehow
‘‘caused’’
his mother to love his sister ‘‘more’’ while similarly ‘‘causing’’
his
mother to wish she could ‘‘be rid’’ of him. Once these thoughts
were conscious he and I were able to see how he sought safety
by moving to thoughts of wanting to be with just the men. These
themes continued in his confusion about the sexual differences
between males and females. Again he sought the protection of
staying home with his Dad, rather than confronting the boys and
girls at the club that ‘‘stir him up.’’
Tommy began expressing disappointment in his play subsequent
to the material documented here, with the ‘‘grown-ups’’ who
don’t
make cars, or the shuttle, or other vehicles ‘‘safe’’ for the
passen-
gers. For Tommy the disillusionment with his parents,
particularly
his mother, seems to relate most clearly to the arrival of his
sister.
While his sister’s birth is unambiguously something his parents
caused, it by no means makes them bad, merely human. Had I
been seduced (as would be so easy) into forming a helpfully
sup-
portive alliance with Tommy against his ‘‘bad’’ parents, I
would
384 CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL
have continued to be ‘‘all good’’ for my patient; a comfortable
26. posi-
tion certainly, but not nearly so helpful as I can be by retaining
my neutrality.
References
Anthony, E. J. (1986). The contributions of child
psychoanalysis to psychoanalysis.
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 41, 61–87.
Berman, E. (1997). Hitchcock’s Vertigo: The collapse of a
rescue fantasy. International
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 78, 975–988.
Bernstein, I., & Glenn, J. (1978). The child analyst’s emotional
reactions to his
patients. In J. Glenn (Ed.), Child Analysis and Therapy pp. 375–
392. New York:
Jason Aronson.
Bornstein, B. (1948). Emotional barriers in the understanding
and treatment of chil-
dren. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 18, 691–697.
Chused, J. F. (1988). Transference neurosis in child analysis.
Psychoanalytic Study of
the Child, 43, 51–81.
Chused, J. F. (1991). The evocative power of enactments.
Journal of the American Psy-
choanalytic Association, 39, 615–639.
Chused, J. F. (1997). Discussion of ‘‘Observing-participation,
mutual enactment, and
the new classical models’’ by Irwin Hirsch. Contemporary
Psychoanalysis, 33,
27. 263–277.
Deutsch, H. (1945). The Psychology of Women. New York:
Grune and Stratton.
Esman, A. H. (1987). Rescue Fantasies. Psychoanalytic
Quarterly, 56, 263–270.
Frankiel, R. (1985). The stolen child: A fantasy,a wish, a source
of countertransfer-
ence. International Review of Psychoanalysis, 12, 417–430.
Ferenczi, S. (1919). On the technique of psychoanalysis. In
Further Contributions to
the Theory and Technique of Psychoanalysis. New York:
Brunner-Mazel, 1980,
pp. 177–189.
Freud, A. (1936). The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense.
New York: International
University Press.
Freud, S. (1986). Family Romance. In J. Strachey (Ed. and
trans.), The Standard Edi-
tion of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud
(Vol. 10, pp. 74–78).
London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1909)
Freud, S. (1986). A special type of object choice made by men.
In J. Strachey (Ed. and
trans.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological
Works of Sigmund
Freud (Vol. 11, pp. 43–61). London: Hogarth Press. (Original
work published
1910)
Frosch, J. (1959). Transference derivatives of the family
28. romance. Journal of the
American Psychoanalytic Association, 7, 503–522.
Gillman, R. (1992). Rescue fantasies and the secret benefactor.
Psychoanalytic Study
of the Child, 47, 279–298.
Glenn, J., Sabot, L. M., & Bernstein, I. (1978). The role of the
parents in child analy-
sis. In J. Glenn (Ed.), Child Analysis and Therapy, (pp. 393–
426.) New York:
Jason Aronson.
Greenacre, P. (1966a). Emotional Growth. New York:
International University Press.
Greenacre, P. (1966b). Problems of overidealization of the
analyst and of analysis. In
Emotional Growth Vol. 11 (pp. 743–761). New York:
International Universities
Press, 1971.
Grinstein, A. (1957). A specific defense in psychoanalytic
therapy: ‘‘Comes the knight
in shining armor’’. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic
Association, 5, 124–
129.
KERRY L. MALAWISTA 385
Jacobs, T. (1986). On countertransference enactments. Journal
of the American Psy-
choanalytic, 34, 289–308.
29. Joseph, B. (1985). Transference: The total situation.
International Journal of Psycho-
analysis, 66, 447–454.
Kabcenell, R. (1974). On countertransference. Psychoanalytic
Study of the Child, 29,
27–35.
Norman, J. (1989). The analyst’s visual images and the child
analyst’s trap. Psycho-
analytic Study of the Child, 44, 117–135.
Sanville, J. (1991). The Playground of Psychoanalytic Therapy.
New Jersey: The Ana-
lytic Press.
Sterba, R. (1940). Aggression in the rescue fantasy.
Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 9, 505–
508.
Volkan, V. D. (1985). Becoming a psychoanalyst. In J. Reppen
(Ed.) Analysts at Work
(pp. 215–231). New Jersey: Analytic Press.
386 CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL
Copyright of Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal is the
property of Springer Science & Business Media
B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
30. holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.