Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 23, No.

3, Spring 1999

Unconscious Displacements in College

Teacher and Student Relationships:
Conceptualizing, Identifying, and
Managing Transference
Douglas L. Robertson

ABSTRACT: Transference is an unconscious displacement of thoughts, feelings, and

behaviors from a previous significant relationship onto a current relationship—a
phenomenon that teachers and students both enact with each other, sometimes
resulting in a dramatic intensification of those relationships. Transference can pertain
importantly to understanding and managing the complex, dynamic, intersubjective
system that constitutes the educational helping relationship. Based on an analysis of
over 350 items in the college teaching and transference literatures, this article
provides: (a) a conceptual foundation for understanding transference, (b) 15 indicators
of its possible occurrence, and (c) 9 recommendations for its effective management.
I didn't know why. I just felt comfortable with her. Then, one day she
did something that I thought was completely out of character for her,
and it really hurt my feelings. I realized later that she reminded me
of a nun that had been very special to me in grade school. When she
didn't act like the nun I had known, I felt disappointed. I know she
is not the same person, but at the time I reacted as if she was.
I didn't notice much about him when I first started taking his class.
He seemed nice enough and he obviously knew the material. As the
weeks went by, I started to dislike him. I found fault in every little
thing he did. I built a case against him. I am embarrassed to say I
even tried to get other people to dislike him. When I really thought
about it, he hadn't done anything to deserve my treatment. In therapy,
I realized he reminded me of my stepfather. My stepfather was a nice
guy too. In fact, I had always wanted his attention, but he was more
interested in my brother. I guess I wanted some special attention from
Mr. [Smith]. When I didn't get it, all of the old feelings returned, (ex-
cerpts from reentry female students' descriptions of their relationships
with teachers and advisers; Robertson, 1995, pp. 51-52).

Douglas L. Robertson, Professor of Education in the Graduate School of Education at

Portland State University, received his B.A. from the University of Oregon and the
M.A. and Ph.D. from Syracuse University. His current scholarship focuses on building
two interrelated theories—a developmental model of the professor-as-teacher and a
conceptualization of college teaching as an educational helping relationship.

151 © 1999 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

152 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

After substantial research on college teaching and careful consid-

eration of the various perspectives of professors as they approach
their work as teachers, I have concluded that, if we continue to de-
velop as college teachers (something that is certainly not a given),
we tend to move through three distinct perspectives (Robertson, in
press-a). Initially, we usually begin with a teacher-centered perspec-
tive that focuses on our own content mastery. Then, we generally
move to a learner-centered perspective that concentrates on the
learners' experience. Finally, we may arrive at a teacher/learner-cen-
tered perspective that emphasizes both the learners' experience and
the teacher's experience in interaction. Essentially, I think that we
tend to move from approaching teaching as disseminating knowledge
to progressive refinements of viewing teaching as facilitating learning
and that we come to see ourselves more as subject experts who also—
as if we were a kind of learning counselor—facilitate epistemological
or developmental transitions in learners rather than as mere subject
experts who simply profess their knowledge to students (Robertson,
1996, 1998, in press-a, in press-b). However, as we enter this edu-
cational helping relationship as learning facilitators rather than as
knowledge disseminators, I have observed that we receive little guid-
ance from the college teaching literature on how to manage relational
complexities with our students (Robertson, 1996). Usually, we are
told simply that we should be trustworthy, caring, nurturing mentors
and are left to own devices to deal with the dark side of helping
relationships (e.g., problems with boundary management, interper-
sonal conflict, burnout, or sexual attraction). Other helping profes-
sions—such as counseling, clinical psychology, psychiatry, social work,
and ministry—have a great deal to teach us about the dynamics of
the helping relationship, even though their fundamental purposes
may differ from those of teaching (Robertson, 1998).
One phenomenon that appears to be a common factor in the dy-
namics of the helping relationship—educational or otherwise—is
transference, an unconscious displacement of thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors from a previous significant relationship onto a current re-
lationship (see student comments above). For example, Daloz (1986)
comments in his sensitive and influential book on teaching and men-
toring adult students, "Transference ... is what gives the mentor-
prote'ge' relationship its fire. [I]t occurs in modified form in virtually
all mentorships. [I]n the intensity of the connection lies the power
of the teaching (p. 105; also see Britzman & Pitt, 1996; Brooke, 1987;
Culley, Diamond, Edwards, Lennox, & Portuges, 1985; Davis, 1987;
 Transference 153

Felman, 1987; Finkel & Arney, 1995; Frank, 1995; Heinrich, 1995;
Jacobs, 1991; Jay, 1987; Kurpius, Gibson, Lewis, & Corbet, 1991;
McCready, 1985; McGee, 1987; Moi, 1992; Murphy, A., 1989; Murphy,
C., 1989; Penley, 1989; Robertson, 1993; Robertson, 1995; Salzber-
ger-Wittenberg, Henry, & Osborne, 1983; Scheman, 1995; Schleifer,
1987; Simon, 1995; Tobin, 1993). However, unlike Daloz and a few
other authors, most college educators do not recognize transference
nor even understand what it is. When the fire starts, they get
burned. This paper is about the fire, about the intensity, that Daloz
identifies in transference in the teacher/student relationship.
Working from an extensive review of the college teaching and the
transference literatures—an analysis of more than 350 items—as
well as from an experiential base that includes 25 years as a college
and university teacher and 10 years as a faculty developer, in this
article I offer college educators the following: (a) conceptual back-
ground for transference (What is it?), (b) 15 possible indicators of
transference (What does it look like?), and (c) 9 recommended strate-
gies for the effective management of transference (What do you do
about it?). The larger context of this discussion is the conceptualiza-
tion of the educational helping relationship through exploration of
various aspects of the complex, dynamic, intersubjective system that
the teacher/student relationship constitutes—in this case, uncon-
scious displacements called transference.
Finally, I should note that I do not approach the topic of transfer-
ence through the disciplinary lens of psychology or psychoanalysis.
In addressing a problem, I feel most comfortable drawing material
from all relevant disciplines in the belief that the problem or theme
should define the inquiry, not a particular discipline. I am especially
sensitive to the communicational interference caused by jargon, and
I try to eliminate it or translate it whenever possible. These princi-
ples, aspirations, and values guide the discussion that follows, al-
though I may not always have succeeded fully in actualizing them.

Conceptual Background—What Is It?

In applying a concept—such as transference—across disciplines to
a setting different from its original or previous domains of use, one
should know something about the concept's history in order to deepen
understanding of the concept and to avoid repeating commonly ac-
knowledged mistakes and inventing things that have already been
154 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

invented. I intend the following section to be a brief primer on trans-

ference, as well as a clarification of terms for the discussions that
follow it.

Freud's Introduction

In 1895, Freud introduced—some say discovered—transference

(Freud, 1895/1955, p. 302). Initially calling it a "false connection" be-
tween the physician and a significant figure from the patient's past,
the concept appeared again five years later in his ground-breaking
treatise, The Interpretation of Dreams (1900/1958a, p. 184, p. 200).
By 1905, or ten years after its introduction, Freud placed transfer-
ence at the center of the psychoanalytic method, calling the phenome-
non an "inevitable necessity" (Freud, 1905/1953, p. 116), and he
elaborated on his initial description:
What are transferences? They are new editions or facsimiles of the
impulses and phantasies which are aroused and made conscious during
the progress of the analysis; but they have this peculiarity, which is
characteristic for their species, that they replace some earlier person
by the person of the physician. To put it another way: a whole series
of psychological experiences are revived, not as belonging to the past
but as applying to the person of the physician at the present moment
(p. 116).
This transference is unconscious, and, as Freud pointed out later in
a paper on technique, it is often an important tool in the patient's
resistance to the analysis when it touches on sensitive issues
(1912/1958b), a point to remember with regard to students' resistance
to learning material that they may find sensitive. By 1912, Freud
had developed the concept further and distinguished between positive
and negative transference:
We must make up our minds to distinguish a "positive" transference
from a "negative" one, the transference of affectionate feelings from
that of hostile ones, and to treat the two sorts of transference to the
doctor separately (1912/1958b, p. 105).
Finally, with regard to the application of the concept to non-clinical
settings (such as college classrooms), Freud clearly thought transfer-
ence to be a common, everyday phenomenon. For example, he com-
mented, "Transference arises spontaneously in all human
relationships . . . and the less its presence is suspected, the more
powerfully it operates" (1910/1957a, p. 51). Expert opinion has wa-
vered little on this point. For instance, Freud's initial disciple and
 Transference 155

later adversary, Jung (1946/1966) wrote, "[Transference] is moreover

a very frequent natural occurrence. Indeed, in any human relation-
ship that is at all intimate, certain transference phenomena will al-
most always operate as helpful or disturbing factors" (p. 171). If the
reader is interested in the concept's developmental course from these
beginnings, some excellent reviews exist for consultation (Bird, 1972;
Campbell, 1989; Gelso & Carter, 1985; Gill, 1982; Greenson, 1967;
Lane, 1986; Laplanche & Pontalis, 1973; McLaughlin, 1981; Moi,
1992; Orr, 1954; Backer, 1968; Watkins, 1983).

Lacan, Poststructural Pedagogies, and Necessity

Notable in the concept's history is the work of French psychoana-
lyst Lacan. Writing in the 1960s and 1970s, Lacan (1966/1977a,
1973/1977b, 1975/1988a, 1978/1988b) emphasized knowledge and
authority in describing transference—two concepts that are easily
translated to the context of a college classroom—and thereby seemed
to stimulate some application of the concept to college teaching (e.g.,
Brooke, 1987; Davis, 1987; Felman, 1987; Jay, 1987; McGee, 1987;
Moi, 1992; Penley, 1989; Schleifer, 1987). Often, Lacan speaks di-
rectly about teaching—particularly in his published seminars (Lacan,
1975/1988a, 1978/1988b)—which further invites instructional appli-
cations. Also, especially attractive to college teachers is his discussion
of ignorance "as a passion" (Lacan, 1975/1988a, p. 271), an approach
that deals directly with the resistance to learning that teachers often
face. Regarding transference, Lacan (1973/1977b) wrote:
As soon as the subject who is supposed to know exists somewhere
. . . there is transference The question is first, for each subject,
where he takes his bearings from when applying to the subject who
is supposed to know. Whenever this function may be, for the subject,
embodied in some individual, whether or not an analyst, the transfer-
ence, according to the definition I have given you of it, is established
(pp. 232-233).
Felman (1987) demonstrated compellingly the application of the
Lacanian perspective to teaching, pointing out that the teacher, like
the analyst, must be taught by the student's own process how best
to help them ("thus making himself a student of the patient's knowl-
edge"; p. 83). So, in this sense, the teacher and the student are both
"subjects who are supposed to know." This approach appeals to con-
structivists in general and to supporters of feminist, poststructural,
and liberation pedagogies in particular. For example, in a critical re-
156 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

view of the concepts of transference and counter-transference, Moi

(1992) writes:
The feminist interest of Felman's analysis is that it enables us to de-
construct a phallocentric and authoritarian view of teaching as well as
of knowledge. It also serves to warn against the temptation to counter
patriarchal models of learning by setting up women in the traditional
role of subject supposed to know (p. 433).
Incidentally, Heinrich (1995) clearly identifies maternal transference
among female doctoral students and their female advisers, and
Culley et al. (1985) address directly the mother/daughter transfer-
ence that often typifies the classroom relationship between female
teachers and female students. These transference phenomena make
one wonder why Moi calls this kind of Lacanian investment of epis-
temological authority "phallocentric" when the "subject who is sup-
posed to know" can obviously be either female or male and the
assignment of authority can tap either uterocentric or phallocentric
reservoirs of meaning. Interestingly, having warned against "setting
up women in the traditional role of subject supposed to know," Moi
(1992) goes on to note the necessity of having the teacher assume
that role, in what I think is an exquisite account of one of teaching's
central paradoxes:
This is not to say that we can do without the illusion of a subject
supposed to know. Just like the analytical process, the teaching process
is paradoxical. Without transference there can be no analysis: without
the motivating illusion of a subject supposed to know, teaching will
not take off. Teaching as well as analysis, then, would seem to require
its participants at one and the same time to construct and deconstruct
the illusion of the subject supposed to know. . . . . No wonder Freud
thought teaching was an impossible profession [along with healing and
governing] (p. 433).
Again, notice the power of transference in the teacher/student rela-
tionship. Moi's remark above that without it "teaching will not take
off' echoes Daloz's (1986) observation that "transference ... is what
gives the mentor-protgge' relationship its fire" (p. 105).

Countertransference

Now we turn briefly to Countertransference. In all of his many writ-

ings, Freud restricted the usage of the term transference to the pa-
tient, and he seemed reluctant to admit that the physician
experiences transference as well. Instead, in 1910, 15 years after in-
 Transference 157

troducing the notion of transference, Freud (1910/1957b) created the

concept of counter-transference to refer to the physician's unconscious
response to the patient:
We have become aware of the "counter-transference", which arises in
[the physician] as a result of the patient's influence on his unconscious
feelings, and we are almost inclined to insist that he shall recognize
this counter-transference in himself and overcome it. Now that a con-
siderable number of people are practising psycho-analysis and exchang-
ing their observations with one another, we have noticed that no
psycho-analyst goes further than his own complexes and internal re-
sistances permit; and we consequently require that he shall begin his
activity with a self-analysis and continually carry it deeper while he
is making his observations on his patients (pp. 144-145).
Apparently, Freud never admitted that analysts can self-generate
transference on their own without it being "a result of the patient's
influence" on them, hence the prefix countertransference. Five years
later (1915), in discussing the transference-love that often occurs in
psychoanalytic treatment (i.e., patients falling in love with their phy-
sicians), he warned physicians not to take the patient's deep affection
for them at its face value and thereby fall victim to a second type
of countertransference problem, viz. not recognizing the patient's
transference when it occurs:
[The physician] must recognize that the patient's falling in love is in-
duced by the analytic situation and is not to be attributed to the
charms of his own person; so that he has no grounds whatever for
being proud of such a "conquest", as it would be called outside analysis
(1915/1958c, pp. 160-161).
In this fascinating period piece on psychoanalytic technique, Freud
(1915/1958c) preached "abstinence" (p. 165) in the face of transfer-
ence-love and warned that patients will "try to make [the physician]
captive to their socially untamed passion" (p. 170). To Freud, working
through this transference remains essential to the patient's improve-
ment; however, the physician must exercise the utmost care in han-
dling the potentially explosive situation:
The lay public . . . will doubtless seize upon this discussion of trans-
ference-love as another opportunity for directing the attention of the
world to the serious danger of this therapeutic method. The psycho-
analyst knows that he is working with highly explosive forces and that
he needs to proceed with as much caution and conscientiousness as a
chemist. But when have chemists ever been forbidden, because of the
danger, from handling explosive substances, which are indispensable,
on account of their effects? (pp. 170-171)
158 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

Beyond these two papers (1910/1957b, 1915/1958c), Freud published

little else about counter-transference (Freud, 1915/1958c, footnote 1,
pp. 160-161). The concept of counter-transference has been stretched
over the years to cover a dizzying array of helper behavior. Kernberg
(1965) usefully corrals approaches to counter-transference into two ba-
sic categories: (a) the classical approach, which treats countertrans-
ference as "the unconscious reaction of the psychoanalyst to the
patient's transference" (p. 38); and (b) the totalistic approach, which
considers counter-transference to be "the total emotional reaction of
the psychoanalyst to the patient in the treatment situation" (p. 38),
However, despite Kernberg's worthwhile typology, uncertainty over
the term's intended meaning can often prevail. For example, Gelso
and Carter (1985) preface their attempt at a definition of counter-
transference with this comment:
While we seem to be in a field [counseling psychology] that is highly
tolerant of (if not thriving on) vagueness in definition, the conceptual
confusion about this term [countertransference] probably taxes even
the most theoretically casual of us (p. 173).
Some excellent conceptual reviews exist to aid readers who are in-
terested in tracing the concept's evolution (Campbell, 1989; Cerney,
1985; Gelso & Carter, 1985; Gorkin, 1987; Heimann, 1950; Lane,
1986; Laplanche & Pontalis, 1973; Maroda, 1991; Moi, 1992; Natter-
son, 1991; Orr, 1954; Racker, 1968; Tansey & Burke, 1989; Tyson,
1986; Watkins, 1985; Wolstein, 1959, 1988).

Transference Is Transference

A variety of authors believes that transference applies to both the

helper and the helpee and question the practice of referring to it as
countertransference if the helper does it and transference if the
helpee does it. For example, McLaughlin (1981) argues, "If the past
fifty years of analyst-watching have clarified anything about the na-
ture of the analyst's experiences, it is that transference is a matter
of equal rights, both on and behind the couch" (p. 639); Gelso and
Carter (1985) note, "In effect what we are dealing with here [in coun-
tertransference] is the counselor's transference to the client" (p. 176);
and Finkel and Arney (1995) conclude, "Transference is transference,
whether experienced by the doctor or by the patient" (p. 63). Based
on considerable support in the literature (Bird, 1972; Britzman &
Pitt, 1996; Gelso & Carter, 1985; Finkel & Arney, 1995; McLaughlin,
 Transference 159

1981; Olinick, 1969), I do not refer to the teachers' (helpers') dis-

placements from significant figures in their pasts onto present per-
sons, specifically students (helpees), as counter-transference. Instead,
I call this phenomenon transference whether the student does it or
the teacher does it.

Possible Indicators of Transference—What Does It Look

Like?

Because transference is unconscious, at least initially, the litera-

ture on helping relationships teaches us to look for its signs both in
ourselves and in our students rather than to rely strictly on conscious
awareness. If these signs appear, transference is not a certainty; how-
ever, it is a possibility, perhaps even a probability. The possibility
alone warrants our attention and further reflection. Given this quali-
fication (viz., possibility not certainty), I have extracted or extrapo-
lated—primarily from the transference literature that deals
specifically with college teaching—15 concrete signs that transference
might be occurring in the teacher/student relationship. This list is
certainly not exhaustive, and readers are encouraged to make addi-
tions as dictated by their experience.
1. The student has an intense reaction to you—either positive (e.g.,
loves you), negative (e.g., hates you), or neutral (e.g., holds stead-
fastly indifferent to you, ignores your personhood), or vice versa, you
have an extreme response to the student (Britzman & Pitt, 1996;
Culley et al., 1985; Daloz, 1986; Felman, 1987; Finkel & Arney, 1995;
Freud, 1974; Jacobs, 1991; McCready, 1985; Murphy, A., 1989; Penley,
1989; Robertson, 1993; Robertson, 1995; Salzberger-Wittenberg et al.,
1983; Tobin, 1993).
2. The student responds to you as if he or she knows you better
than he or she really does, or vice versa, you react to the student
in this way (Daloz, 1986; Robertson, 1995).
3. You have a good relationship with the student; and it suddenly
worsens, which, for example, might lead to antagonistic or distancing
behaviors—essentially defensive behaviors—such as the student
withdrawing from the class or leaving the program, the teacher with-
drawing support from a student or avoiding a student, or either the
teacher or the student engaging abruptly and uncharacteristically in
passive/aggressive or actively aggressive speech regarding the other
(Daloz, 1986; Murphy, A., 1989; Robertson, 1995).
160 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

4. The student seems especially sensitive to your availability and

reacts very negatively if you are late at all, if you have to miss office
hours or a class meeting for whatever reason, or if you are distracted
or tired and, as a result, emotionally unavailable; or vice versa, you
are hyper-vigilant regarding the student's physical presence or psy-
chological engagement (Jacobs, 1991; Murphy, A., 1989).
5. You feel inexplicably drawn to treating the student in an un-
characteristic way: for example, you have "decentered" authority and
treat the students as co-learners, but somehow you end up acting
like a father or mother, or a son or daughter, with a particular stu-
dent; you assume an androgynous stance as a teacher, but somehow
feel a pull toward traditional gender role behavior with regard to a
particular student; or you have clear boundaries regarding contact
of a personal nature with students, but somehow you find yourself
ignoring them with regard to a certain student (Culley, 1989; Culley
et al., 1985; Salzberger-Wittenberg et al., 1983; Tobin, 1993).
6. The student is unable to receive even the most constructive criti-
cism without appearing to feel personally attacked; or vice versa, you
are particularly thin-skinned with regard to criticism from a certain
student (Jacobs, 1991; Murphy, A., 1989; Robertson, 1995).
7. The student manifests what seems to be an excessively urgent
need for your approval; or vice versa, you feel desperate for a stu-
dent's positive regard (Jacobs, 1991; Murphy, A., 1989; Robertson,
1995).
8. The student uses language from his or her therapy to describe
your relationship with him or her or vice versa, you are in therapy
and cannot help likening a relationship pattern with a student to a
relationship pattern in another context—say with a family member—
that your therapy has identified (Robertson, 1993; Robertson, 1995).
9. The student seems to feel inappropriately safe with you, as if
you would never challenge him or her to do something that he or
she did not want to do or would never provide negative feedback in
the form of criticism, a poor grade, a request for a re-write, or the
like; or vice versa, without adequate basis, you assume unconditional
positive regard from a student (Watkins, 1983).
10. The student behaves in a childish way that seems inappropri-
ate for the setting and for the student's usual level of maturity (out
of place humor, chronic and avoidable tardiness or absences, repeated
references to you as some kind of an authority figure); or vice versa,
you find yourself acting childishly (Murphy, A., 1989; Culley, 1989).
 Transference 161

11. The student is extremely reluctant or unable to accept help

from you; or vice versa, you have extraordinary difficulty accepting
help from a student (Jacobs, 1991).
12. The student seems to be afraid of you; or vice versa, you fear
a student for no apparent reason (Salzberger-Wittenberg et al., 1983).
13. You feel compelled to "rescue" a student; or vice versa, a stu-
dent seems unusually drawn to "saving" you (Britzman & Pitt, 1996;
Freud, 1974; Jacobs, 1991; Olinick, 1969).
14. You or the student manifest inexplicable blocks—e.g., writing,
mathematical, communicational, or thinking (Murphy, A., 1989).
15. The student seems to be jealous of you and to engage in a
rivalry with you; or vice versa, you compete jealously with the stu-
dent (Salzberger-Wittenberg et al., 1983; Tobin, 1993).

Recommendations for Managing Transference—What Do

You Do About It?
The discussions of transference in college teaching have focused
on building a case for the meaningful presence of transference in the
teacher/student relationship—i.e., conceptualizing it, generally using
either Freud's or Lacan's definitions, and illustrating it (Britzman &
Pitt, 1996; Brooke, 1987; Culley et al., 1985; Daloz, 1986; Davis,
1987; Felman, 1987; Finkel & Arney, 1995; Frank, 1995; Heinrich,
1995; Jacobs, 1991; Jay, 1987; Kurpius et al., 1991; McCready, 1985;
McGee, 1987; Moi, 1992; Murphy, A., 1989; Penley, 1989; Robertson,
1993; Robertson, 1995; Salzberger-Wittenberg et al., 1983; Scheman,
1995; Schleifer, 1987; Simon, 1995; Tobin, 1993). By and large, this
work has not addressed what college teachers should do to manage
transference in their relationships with their students. However, this
management question usually blazes in the minds of teachers who
have accepted the presence of transference as well their responsibil-
ity to deal with it in a professional and productive way. In an ex-
tensive literature review, I queried the helping literature in general
to see what it recommends regarding the effective management of
transference (and counter-transference). After evaluating the various
suggestions in search of that which could be applied beneficially to
college teaching, I derived the following nine recommendations for
college educators.
1. Cultivate a receptive attitude (Brockett & Gleckman, 1991). This
recommendation really involves a precondition—a readiness to accept
162 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

the unconscious at work in both oneself and in students and a will-

ingness to acknowledge one's own and students' thoughts, feelings,
and behaviors, regardless of what they are.
2. Exercise active awareness (Abney, Yang, & Paulson, 1992;
Beaman, 1994; Britzman & Pitt, 1996; Brockett & Gleckman, 1991;
Brower, 1980; Casement, 1991; Cerney, 1985; Dunkel & Hatfield,
1986; Gelso & Carter, 1985; Gerber, 1995; Hayes, Gelso, Van
Wagoner, & Diemer, 1991; Mitchell & Melikian, 1995; Morgan, 1994;
Muse, 1992; Peaslee, 1995; Robbins & Jolkovski, 1987; Stein, 1985;
VanWagoner, Gelso, Hayes, & Diemer, 1991; Watkins, 1985). A
teacher need not wait passively for a relationship problem to develop
with students. Instead, teachers are better served by exercising ac-
tive vigilance for any behavior that seems out of character for either
the students or themselves. Because transference is unconscious,
teachers benefit from looking for its signs rather than merely trust-
ing that they or their students will know it when they enact it.
3. Set and maintain clear boundaries (Abney et al., 1992; Francis
& Turner, 1995). In a transference enactment, pressure develops—
either from teachers themselves or from their students—to act out
of character or out of role, i.e., to act in accordance with the trans-
ference paradigm rather than the here-and-now context. Regardless
of whether the transference is in the teacher or in the students,
teachers should preserve the boundaries of the teacher and student
roles (as they define them). If their definitions of these boundaries
are fuzzy, they are more vulnerable to trouble during transference
enactments. So, first, the literature advises teachers to make sure
that they have defined thoughtful boundaries, then, to communicate
them early and often to students, and finally, to maintain them. If
teachers do not have students over for dinner, they should not change
their practice because they have found a particular student unusually
interesting. If teachers do not take calls from students at home, they
should not change their practice because they feel a need to try to
save a particularly talented and tragically self-destructive student. I
am not recommending that teachers give all of these details to stu-
dents—as in opening a course by saying, "I do not have dinner with
students, nor accept calls from students at home, nor . . . . " I am
recommending that teachers have a clear conception of what being
a teacher means to them—as opposed to being a friend or a crisis
hotline counselor—and that teachers communicate that conception in
consistent word and deed.
 Transference 163

4. Anticipate the types of transference that one's stance tends to

stimulate (Gelso & Carter, 1985). Is the teacher the motherly type,
the fatherly type, soft and nurturing, fierce and intimidating, nun-
like, priest-like, traditional lecturer, de-centered colearner, what is
the teacher's stance in his or her various educational contexts? This
question, in itself, is an interesting one for a teacher to contemplate.
Further, though, teachers are well advised to consider the kinds of
transference that their stance is most likely to provoke, and with
whom.
5. Modify one's stance in selected cases (Gelso & Carter, 1985).
Many teachers have an array of teaching personae that they can
assume, along with their preferred one. If the teacher's preferred per-
sona is stimulating a negative transference in a student, the teacher's
effectiveness in working with that student may benefit from the
teacher shifting to another persona that stimulates a positive trans-
ference or no transference at all. Cultivating a variety of teaching
personae and assuming the most appropriate persona as the learner
and the context dictate are two critical abilities for the effective fa-
cilitation of learning, in general, and for the effective management
of transference, in specific.
6. Anticipate one's transference relative to typical students (Dunkel
& Hatfield, 1986; Francis & Turner, 1995; Mitchell & Melikian, 1995;
Morgan, 1994; Muse, 1992; Peaslee, 1995; Pollak & Levy, 1989). Ob-
vious statement notwithstanding, teachers are human beings just
like students, and they each have their own peculiar vulnerabilities
to transference enactments just as students do. Gill (1993) astutely
observes, "Probably the greatest obstacle to analysts' recognition of
their participation in the analytic situation is the assumption that
the analyst can choose whether or not to participate. The point is
that he participates whether he likes it or not" (p. 127). I have no
doubt that the same is true of teaching. The helping literature sug-
gests that teachers should be aware of their vulnerabilities and
transference tendencies in reference to the students whom they typi-
cally teach (e.g., Tobin, 1993, pp. 34-35).
7. Refer the student to another teacher (Cerney, 1985; Gelso &
Carter, 1985; Muse, 1992; Watkins, 1985). Although a teacher does
not always have this option, the possibility should be explored, par-
ticularly if the relationship with the student seems to be mired hope-
lessly in either positive or negative transference. The helping
literature suggests that teachers benefit from accepting that they
cannot be effective with all students and that with some students
164 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

they are destined to be ineffective regardless of how hard and how

thoughtfully they try.
8. Get consultative support (Abney et al., 1992; Britzman & Pitt,
1996; Brockett & Gleckman, 1991; Casement, 1985; Cerney, 1985;
Dunkel & Hatfield, 1986; Francis & Turner, 1995; Freud, 1974; Hayes
et al., 1991; Kurpius et al., 1991; Mitchell & Melikian, 1995; Muse,
1992; Peaslee, 1995; Pollak & Levy, 1989; Watkins, 1985). The con-
ceptualization of college teaching as the facilitation of learning,
rather than the dissemination of knowledge, means that teaching is
a type of helping relationship—an educational helping relationship.
Further, the construal of teaching as an educational helping relation-
ship indicates a need to normalize in college teaching the develop-
ment and use of the type of supports for the teacher that typify those
supports for helpers that have been normalized in other helping pro-
fessions (Robertson, 1996). For example, in the professional fields
dealing with psychotherapy, social work, and ministry, often the
helper is encouraged to seek "supervision" with troublesome cases.
This supervision generally is in the form of confidential consultation
with another qualified helping professional which can include an ex-
amination of the helper's own issues in working with a client—issues
such as transference. I believe that teachers benefit from having a
similar access to support in the form of another instructional spe-
cialist in confidential relationship with whom the teacher is free to
explore anything—including the teacher's own transference, fanta-
sies, anger, infatuations, guilt, and the like—that pertains to effective
performance as an educational helper with a particular student or
group. Interestingly, Casement (1985) has recommended the devel-
opment of an "internal supervisor," or an internalization of a super-
visory frame of reference that can be engaged to assess critically one's
performance and experience and to generate recommendations based
on professionally accepted standards. However, I wonder how this
would protect the teacher from unconscious distortions such as trans-
ference. I think that another person provides better supervision than
one's internal supervisor, depending of course on the quality of that
other person. Also, the helping literature encourages the use of aids
such as peer support groups, formal or informal consultants who
know the particular student or population involved, and in some
cases, therapy for the helper concerning recurring issues that inter-
fere importantly with that person's functionality in the helping role.
9. Do not discuss the transference with the student. The literature
contains some debate on whether or not to disclose one's own trans-
 Transference 165

ference (if one becomes aware of it) to the person whom one is help-
ing (Gorkin, 1987; Tansey & Burke, 1989). Traditionally, such disclo-
sure is proscribed, although some do advocate it (Maroda, 1991;
Watkins, 1985). Personally, I am not convinced of this disclosure's
benefits, and I recommend against it within a college teaching con-
text. A related question concerns discussing with students their
transference onto the teacher if the teacher begins to suspect it.
Again, within typical college teaching and advising contexts, I rec-
ommend against it. Too much can go wrong, and losing a fix on one's
teaching role is too easy. The first purpose of psychotherapy is to
promote psychological healing; that of teaching is to promote learning
(Robertson, 1998). Except perhaps in special circumstances—e.g.,
where the transference relates to some healing that is required in
order to learn, say in the case of learning blocks, and where the
teacher is sufficiently skilled at handling an overt discussion of trans-
ference—I think that teachers are best advised to recognize trans-
ference in a student—or in themselves—but not to discuss it overtly
with that student.

Conclusion
If professors continue to develop as teachers, I conclude that they
eventually conceive of teaching as facilitating students' learning
(Robertson, in press-a). With the adoption of this perspective, teach-
ers enter into a helping relationship with learners, an educational
helping relationship—a complex, dynamic, intersubjective system to
promote the students' learning. Within this framework, the subjective
experience of both the teacher and the student is important, particu-
larly in interaction. Within these two sets of subjective experience—
the teacher's and the students'—transference (an unconscious
displacement of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors from a previous sig-
nificant relationship onto a current relationship) may play a major
role at times, particularly in those instances when the relationship
between the teacher and a student is intense, whether positively or
negatively, which generally are also occasions when the teacher may
feel most out of control of the situation. I hope that this essay serves
as tool to aid in developing the ability to conceptualize, identify, and
manage transference enactments in teaching and advising. More
broadly, I hope that this discussion continues to develop the college
teaching profession's conceptualization of the educational helping re-
166 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

lationship and its articulation of elements of good practice within

that relationship.

References
Abney, V. D., Yang, J. A., & Paulson, M. J. (1992). Transference and countertransfer-
ence issues unique to long-term group psychotherapy of adult women molested as
children: Trials and rewards. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 559-569.
Beaman, D. (1994). Black English and the therapeutic relationship. Journal of Mental
Health Counseling, 16, 379-386.
Bird, B. (1972). Notes on transference: Universal phenomenon and hardest part of
analysis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 20, 267-301.
Britzman, D. P., & Pitt, A. J. (1996). Pedagogy and transference: Casting the past of
learning into the presence of teaching. Theory into Practice, 35, 117-123.
Brockett, D. R., & Gleckman, A. D. (1991). Counter-transference with the older adult:
The importance of mental health counselor awareness and strategies for effective
management. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 13, 343-355.
Brooke, R. (1987). Lacan, transference, and writing instruction. College English, 49,
679-691.
Brower, I. C. (1980). Counseling Vietnamese, Personnel and Guidance, 58, 646-652.
Campbell, R. J. (1989). Psychiatric dictionary (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Casement, P. (1985). On learning from the patient. London: Tavistock Publications.
Cerney, M. S. (1985). Countertransference revisited. Journal of Counseling and De-
velopment, 63, 362-364.
Culley, M. (1989). The authority of experience: Adult women in the college classroom.
Equity and Excellence, 24, 67-68.
Culley, M., Diamond, A., Edwards, L., Lennox, S., & Portuges, C. (1985). The politics
of nurturance. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics
of feminist teaching (pp. 11-20). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Daloz, L. A. (1986). Effective teaching and mentoring: Realizing the transformative
power of adult learning experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Davis, R. C. (1987). Pedagogy, Lacan, and the Freudian subject. College English, 49,
749-755.
Dunkel, J., & Hatfield, S. (1986). Countertransference issues in working with persons
with AIDS. Social Work, 31, 114-117.
Felman, S. (1987). Jacques Lacan and the adventure of insight: Psychoanalysis in con-
temporary culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Finkel, D. L, & Arney, W. R. (1995). Educating for freedom: The paradox of pedagogy.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Francis, P. C., & Turner, N. R. (1995). Sexual misconduct within the Christian church:
Who are the perpetrators and those they victimize? Counseling and Values, 39,
218-227.
Frank, A. W. (1995). Lecturing and transference: The undercover work of pedagogy.
In J, Gallop (Ed.), Pedagogy: The question of impersonation (pp. 28-35). Bloom-
ington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Freud, A. (1974). Four lectures on psychoanalysis for teachers and parents (1930). In
A. Freud, The writings of Anna Freud (Vol. 1, pp. 71-133). New York: International
Universities Press.
 Transference 167

Freud, S. (1953). Fragment of an analysis of a case of hysteria. In J. Strachey (Ed.

and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund
Freud (Vol. 7, pp. 1-122). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1905)
Freud, S. (1955). The psychotherapy of hysteria. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The
standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 2,
pp. 253-305). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1895)
Freud, S. (1957a). Five lectures on psycho-analysis. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.),
The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol.
11, pp. 7-55). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1910)
Freud, S. (1957b). The future prospects of psychoanalytic therapy. In J. Strachey (Ed.
and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund
Freud (Vol. 11, pp. 139-151). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published
1910)
Freud, S. (1958a). The interpretation of dreams. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The
standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vols. 4
& 5, pp. 1-630). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1900)
Freud, S. (1958b). The dynamics of transference. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The
standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 12,
pp. 97-108). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1912)
Freud, S. (1958c). Observations on transference-love (further recommendations on the
technique of psycho-analysis III). In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard
edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 12, pp. 157-
171). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1915)
Gelso, C. J., & Carter, J. A. (1985). The relationship in counseling and psychotherapy:
Components, consequences, and theoretical antecedents. The Counseling Psycholo-
gist, 13, 155-243.
Gerber, P. N. (1995). Commentary on counter-transference in working with sex offend-
ers: The issue of sexual attraction. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4, 117-120.
Gill, M. M. (1982). Analysis of transference: Vol. 1. Theory and technique. Psychological
Issues Monograph 53. New York: International Universities Press.
Gill, M. M. (1993). One-person and two-person perspectives: Freud's "observations on
transference-love." In E. S. Person, A. Hagelin, & P. Fonagy (Eds.), On Freud's
"observations on transference-love" (pp. 114-129). New Haven, CN: Yale University
Press.
Gorkin, M. (1987). The uses of countertransference. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Greenson, R. R. (1967). The technique and practice of psychoanalysis. New York: In-
ternational Universities Press.
Hayes, J. A., Gelso, C. J., Van Wagoner, S. L., & Diemer, R. A. (1991). Managing
countertransference: What the experts think. Psychological Reports, 69, 139-148.
Heimann, P. (1950). On countertransference. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis,
31, 81-84.
Heinrich, K. T. (1995). Doctoral advisement relationships between women: On friend-
ship and betrayal. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 447-469.
Jacobs, C. (1991). Violations of the supervisory relationship: An ethical and educational
blind spot. Social Work, 36, 130-135.
Jay, G. S. (1987). The subject of pedagogy: Lessons in psychoanalysis and politics.
College English, 49, 785-800,
Jung, C. G. (1966). The psychology of transference. In R. F. C. Hull (Trans.), The
practice of psychotherapy: Essays on the psychology of the transference and other
subjects (2nd ed.) (pp. 163-338). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Origi-
nal work published 1946)
Kernberg, O. (1965). Notes on countertransference. Journal of the American Psycho-
analytic Association, 13, 38-56.
168 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

Kurpius, D., Gibson, G., Lewis, J., & Corbet, M. (1991). Ethical issues in supervising
counseling practitioners. Counselor Education and Supervision, 31, 48-57.
Lacan, J. (1977a). Ecrits: A selection (J. Lacan, Ed., & A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York:
W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1966)
Lacan, J. (1977b). The four fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis (J. Miller, Ed., &
A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1973)
Lacan, J. (1988a). The seminar of Jaques Lacan: Book I, Freud's papers on technique
1953-1954 (J. Miller, Ed., & J. Forrester, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton. (Origi-
nal work published 1975)
Lacan, J. (1988b). The seminar of Jacques Lacan: Book II, The ego in Freud's theory
and in the technique of psychoanalysis 1964-1955 (J. Miller, Ed., & S. Tbmaselli,
Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1978)
Lane, F. M. (1986). Transference and countertransference: Definitions of terms. In H.
C. Meyers (Ed.), Between analyst and patient: New dimensions in countertrans-
ference and transference (pp. 237-256). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Laplanche, J., & Pontalis, J.-B. (1973). The language of psycho-analysis (D. Nichol-
son-Smith, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1967)
Maroda, K. J. (1991). The power of countertransference: Innovations in analytic tech-
nique. Chicester, West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.
McCready, K F. (1985). Differentiating of transference versus theme interference in
consultee-centered case consultation. School Psychology Review, 14, 471-478.
McGee, P. (1987). Truth and resistance: Teaching as a form of analysis. College Eng-
lish, 49, 667-678.
McLaughlin, J. T. (1981). Transference, psychic reality, and countertransference. Psy-
choanalytic Quarterly, 50, 639-664.
Mitchell, C., & Melikian, K. (1995). The treatment of male sexual offenders: Counter-
transference reactions. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4, 87-93.
Moi, T. (1992). Transference/countertransference. In E. Wright (Ed.), Feminism and
psychoanalysis: A critical dictionary (pp. 431-435). Oxford, UK Blackwell.
Morgan, J. P. (1994). Bereavement in older adults. Journal of Mental Health Coun-
seling, 16, 318-326.
Murphy, A. (1989). Transference and resistance in the basic writing classroom: Proble-
matics and praxis. College Composition and Communication, 40, 175-187.
Murphy, C. (1989). Freud in the writing center: The psychoanalyses of tutoring well.
The Writing Center Journal, 10, 13-18.
Muse, J. S. (1992). Faith, hope, and the "urge to merge" in pastoral ministry: Some
countertransference-related distortions of relationships between male pastors and
their female parishioners. Journal of Pastoral Care, 46, 299-308.
Natterson, J. M. (1991). Beyond countertransference: The therapist's subjectivity in the
therapeutic process. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Olinick, S. L. (1969). On empathy, and regression in service of the other. British Jour-
nal of Medical Psychology, 42, 41-49.
Orr, D. W. (1954). Transference and countertransference: A historical survey. Journal
of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 2, 621-670.
Peaslee, D. M. (1995). Countertransference with specific client populations? A comment
on The treatment of male sexual offenders." Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4,
111-115.
Penley, C. (1989). Teaching in your sleep: Feminism and psychoanalysis. The future
of an illusion: Film, feminism, and psychoanalysis (pp. 165-181). Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press.
Pollak, J., & Levy, S. (1989). Countertransference and failure to report child abuse
and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 515-522.
Racker, H. (1968). Transference and countertransference. New York: International Uni-
versities Press.
 Transference 169

Robbins, S. B., & Jolkovski, M. P. (1987). Managing counts-transference feelings: An

interactional model using awareness of feeling and theoretical framework. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 34, 276-282.
Robertson, D. L. (1993). Bringing reentry home: The phenomenology of a woman's
return to college. In Research Fellows' Symposium, Project for the Study of Adult
Learning (pp. 68-77). Normal, IL: Illinois State University.
Robertson, D. L. (1996). Facilitating transformative learning: Attending to the dynam-
ics of the educational helping relationship. Adult Education Quarterly, 47, 41-53.
Robertson, D. L. (1998). A teleological criterion for determining appropriate cross-pro-
fessional applications among teaching, counseling, and psychotherapy. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Robertson, D. L. (in press-a). Professors' perspectives on their teaching: A new con-
struct and developmental model. Innovative Higher Education.
Robertson, D. L. (in press-b). Transformative learning and transition theory: Toward
developing the ability to facilitate insight. Journal on Excellence in College Teach-
ing, 8(1), 105-125.
Robertson, J. E. (1995). Trust the process: Integrating the student role into adult
women's lives. Vancouver, WA: Human Studies Institute.
Saltzberger-Wittenberg, I., Henry, G., & Osborne, E. (1983). The emotional experience
of learning and teaching. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Scheman, N. (1995). On waking up one morning and discovering we are them. In J.
Gallop (Ed.), Pedagogy: The question of impersonation (pp. 106-116). Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press.
Schleifer, R. (1987). Lacan's enunciation and the cure of mortality: Teaching, trans-
ference, and desire. College English, 4, 801-815.
Simon, R. I. (1995). Face to face with alterity: Postmodern Jewish identity and the
eros of pedagogy. In J. Gallop (Ed.), Pedagogy: The question of impersonation (pp.
90-105). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Stein, H. F. (1985). The psychodynamics of medical practice: Unconscious factors in
patient care. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Tansey, M. J., & Burke, W. F. (1989). Understanding countertransference: From pro-
jective identification to empathy. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Tobin, L. (1993). Writing relationships: What REALLY happens in the composition
class. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Tyson, R. L. (1986). Countertransference evolution in theory and practice. Journal of
the American Psychoanalytic Association, 34, 251-274.
Van Wagoner, S., Gelso, C. J., Hayes, J. A., & Diemer, R. (1991). Countertransference
and the reputedly excellent therapist. Psychotherapy, 28, 411-421.
Watkins, C. E. (1983). Transference phenomena in the counseling situation. Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 62, 206-209.
Watkins, C. E. (1985). Countertransference: Its impact on the counseling situation.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 63, 356-359.
Wolstein, B. (1959). Countertransference. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Wolstein, B. (Ed.). (1988). Essential papers on countertransference. New York: New
York University Press.