——— (1993) The Political Psyche. London and New York: Routledge.
En las páginas 43 a 46 Samuels habla de la dificultades de entender la contratransferencia como un órgano de comunicación:
So there are these five anxieties about countertransference: Anxiety
about the analyst’s neurosis, anxiety about the political legitimacy of
using countertransference, anxiety about the ethical consequences of
breaking the frame, anxiety about the accuracy of depending solely on
countertransference which could also feed patients’ fantasies about
the analyst’s magical powers, or persecute the patient, anxiety about
getting confused. Yet, in spite of the existence of these anxieties, many
if not all of the clinicians that I know continue to understand their
subjective reactions to the patient as if they were, in the broadest
possible metaphorical terms, communications from the patient’s
unconscious. In other words, in spite of the anxiety and the shadow
issues, we go on working with countertransference, no matter what
terms we use to define this process or what caveats we enter about it
