The act of making clear in one language what has
been expressed in another. All translators know the difficulties of
interpreting the subtleties and nuances of another language, expressive
as it is of another culture, its way of life, its values, its sense of
time and timing. It is even more difficult when an interpreter attempts
to translate a psychological utterance whose origin, meaning and
purpose are obscure. Yet, this is what doctors, psychiatrists, analysts
or other psychotherapists attempt to do: for DREAMS, VISIONS and
FANTASY are indistinct METAPHORS. Expressed in symbolic language,
they communicate by way of imagery (see IMAGE; SYMBOL).
Jung’s direct commentaries on the techniques of interpretation are
very few, although most of his work was interpretative. In specific
reference to his method of interpretation of dreams, the following
points emerge:
(1) Interpretation should bring something new to consciousness
and neither reiterate nor moralise. Only if it reveals an unfamiliar,
unexpected or alien content does an interpretation do justice to
the compensatory psychological intent of the dream process (see
COMPENSATION).
(2) Interpretations must take into account the personal context of the
dreamer’s life and his psycho-biographical experience. These and the
influence of his social milieu (sometimes spoken of as collective consciousness)
are arrived at by the process of ASSOCIATION (see COLLECTIVE).
(3) Likewise, wherever relevant, the symbolic content of a dream is
enhanced by comparisons with typical cultural, historical and mythological
motifs. These enlarge the personal context of the dream and
connect it with the ‘collective unconscious’. Making such compari-

sons involves the painstaking work of AMPLIFICATION (see FAIRY
TALE; MYTH; UNCONSCIOUS).
(4) Interpreters are admonished to ‘stick to the dream image’, to stay
as close as possible to that which has been dreamed. Association and
amplification are seen as ways of making the original image more
vivid, available and meaningful. Nevertheless, the dream image belongs
to the dreamer himself and must be referred back to his own
psychological life.
(5) The ultimate test of an interpretation is whether it ‘works’, i.e.
enables a shift in the attitude of CONSCIOUSNESS held by the dreamer ..
In dream seminars (1928-30, pub. 1984) lung spoke of interpretation
on two levels which he called subjective and objective. The
terms are confusing. What he meant by ‘subjective’ was ‘in depth’ or
at the level of intrapsychic change within the person. His use of the
word ‘objective’ suggests on the surface level and was applied to
the actual world of real happenings which a person inhabits and
that affects him. lung asserted that most dreams could be interpreted
at either level although some clearly speak of one or the other
level.
The patient needs to know how to relate to symbolic content but
has little use for terminology and cannot be expected to follow the
theoretical path of the psychotherapist. The therapist needs to interpret
the material psychologically in order to analyse psychic and
archetypal phenomena. However, if he moves too quickly in the
articulation of interpretations in depth, he is in danger of bypassing
the potential involvement of an individual in his own process. Attracted
by the numinosity of archetypal figures or impressed by the
therapist’s expertise, the patient is tempted to explain and not take
seriously the need to integrate unconscious contents (see point 5
above). His own understanding of imagery may remain purely intellectual
and without either personal or psychological relevance. No
dialectical relationship is established between him and his own inner
processes. The fostering and maintenance of such a dialectical relationship
is the function of interpretation.