This analytic exploration reveals that hate can be constructive in therapeutic contexts, implying a need for deeper ethical reflection.
Empathy is not inherently “good” and hatred is not solely, or even primarily, destructive, especially in analytic treatments. While the psychoanalytic literature has long acknowledged countertransference hate, hate is usually treated as transient or defensive, and as something that is ultimately metabolizable into empathy. But hatred, even enduring hatred, is not necessarily a failure or deficit requiring transformation into empathy or compassion. Hating well and empathizing in expansive, situationally informed, non-colonizing ways are not opposite vectors. When hatred is distinguished from its behavioral neighbors (e.g., contempt, derision) and its affective neighbors (e.g., anger, disgust), it can become a powerful, vitalizing affect. Hatred, especially used as an affective core for refusal, can be a solid base for an ethical stance in demanding treatments. Instead of just being a waystation to somewhere else, hatred deserves the ethical consideration and technical refinement that empathy has enjoyed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nicole M. Warner (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: