cting subjective worlds of both therapist and patients (group members). This view constitutes the intersubjective approach which Stolorow et. al. (1987) assert to be the instrumental explanatory construct necessary for illuminating processes of psychoanalytic group therapy and its primary therapeutic tools, namely introspection and empathy.
In other words, what Stolorow et. al. (1987) are saying is that the reality of what goes on in therapy is subjective rather than objective. It can be noted that other authors support this view. For example, Basescu (1990) has contended that the therapist's unique person and personality are always impacting on the therapeutic relationship and that therapists need to recognize them as such. Defining the therapist's countertransference as the total responsiveness to the other person in the therapeutic relationship, Basescu (1990) states that the process can only be denied, never avoided. Further, Basescu reports that when this response is denied, it may become problematic and obstructionistic.
While analysts may reveal themselves intentionally and inadvertently, Basescu reports that effective therapy stems from spontaneous functioning, or freely functioning in the mode appropriate to being the analyst in a psychoanalytic relationship. He also states that most problems are caused not by the analyst's true spontaneity but by the lack of it. If countertransference is to be handled effectively, Basescu (1990) states that therapists must use their selves primarily in the service of their therapeutic enterprise and not as an act of self-indulgence.
While it seems both logical and reasonable to view therapy/group therapy as an intersubjective processes, it also seems reasonable to state that the group therapy process exists within a context that is objective, e.g. the structure of the facility/building where therapy takes place, the size of the group with which the therapist is interacting...