JUNGIAN.DIRECTORY
Jung was emphatic that the analytical relationship
was not to be viewed in terms of a medical or technical procedure.
He referred to ANALYSIS as a ‘dialectical process’, implying that
both participants are equally involved and that there is a two-way
interaction between them. Thus the analyst cannot simply use whatever
authority he might possess, for he is ‘in’ the treatment just as much as the patient and it will be his development as a person rather
than his knowledge that will be decisive. For this reason, Jung was
the first to initiate a compulsory training analysis for those wishing
to practise (CW 4, para. 536; Freud, 1912). Jung’s stress on equality
is somewhat idealistic and it may be preferable to think in terms of
analytical mutuality, to acknowledge the emotional involvement of
the analyst while knowing that the roles of the two persons are not
identical.
In Jung’s conception, the analyst takes a flexible attitude towards
th.e progress of the treatment and the evolution of the analytical
relationship. Here again, the idealism needs to be tempered and Jung
himself contributes to this with his idea that there are, typically, four
stages to an analysis. What is highlighted, though, is the need to
learn from the patient and adapt to his PSYCHIC REALITY.
From these remarks, it can be seen that Jung has underscored what
would now be called the real relationship or therapeutic alliance of
analyst and patient. This can be distinguished from transference and
countertransference which are discussed below. In contemporary psychoanalysis,
a similar movement has taken place so that the ‘nonneurotic,
rational, reasonable, rapport which the patient has with his
analyst and which enables him to work purposefully in the analytic
situation’ is separately identified (Greenson and Wexler, 1969).
Jung’s attitude to transference shows wide variance. On the one
hand, transference is seen as the central feature of analysis, in any
case unavoidable, and, in its blend of the sublime and the revolting,
of great therapeutic usefulness (CW 16, paras 283-4, 358, 371). On
the other hand, transference is sometimes conceived of as nothing
but erotic and as a ‘hindrance’: ‘you cure in spite of transference and
not because of it.’ This divided attitude of Jung’s is reflected in the
various schools of analytical psychology which have evolved since
Jung’s death in 1961. Some analysts regard transference analysis as
a diversion from the more important elucidation of the symbolic
content of the patient’s material. Others see that, in the analysis of
transference, they may meet those infantile traumas or deprivations
which are still at work in their adult patients, Hence, the latter group
do not seek to dissolve transference in favour of ‘reality’ but rather
to allow it to deepen and to be worked with and within. Recently,
it seems that this divide has become less marked than hitherto, as
practitioners sense that content ,analysis (symbols) and process
analysis (transference) are two sides of a single coin.
There are important difference,.s· of emphasis between the concept
of transference which has evolved in analytical psychology and that
of psychoanalysis. Jung separated transference into its personal and
archetypal components in much the same way as he wrote of the personal and the collective UNCONSCIOUS. Personal transference included,
not only those aspects of the patient’s relationship to figures
from the past such as parents which he projects onto the analyst, but
also his individual potential and his SHADOW (see IMAGO; PROJECTION).
That is, the analyst represents and holds for the patient parts
of his psyche which have not yet developed as fully as they might
and also aspects of the patient’s personality he would rather disown.
Archetypal transference has two meanings. First, those transference
projections which are not based on the personal, outer-world
experience of the patient. For example, on the basis of unconscious
fantasy the analyst may be seen as a magical healer or a threatening
devil and this image will have a force greater than a derivation from
ordinary experience would provide (see ARCHETYPE; MANA PERSONALITIES).
The second aspect of archetypal transference refers to the generally
expectable events of analysis, to what the enterprise itself does to the
relationship of analyst and patient. This pattern can be illustrated in
schematic form, adapted from a diagram of lung’s (CW 16, para. 422).
CONSCIOUS I 1 .
ana yst .. • patient .J,0pt, UNCONSCIOUS
The double-headed arrows indicate a two-way communication and
relatedness. (1) refers to the treatment alliance. (2) reflects the fact
that, in analysis, the analyst both draws on his own unconscious for
an understanding of his patient and also encounters whatever it is
that has made him a WOUNDED HEALER. His own analysis will have
made its impact here. (3) represents the patient’s initial stage of
awareness of his problems, interrupted by his resistance and his
devotion to his PERSONA. (4) and (5) indicate the impact of the
analytical relationship upon the unconscious life of each participant,
an intermingling of personalities which will lead each to some kind
of confrontation with the possibility of personal change. (6) proposes
a direct communication between the unconscious of the analyst and
that of the patient. This last hypothesis underpins various ideas about
countertransference (see below). lung felt that in ALCHEMY he had
found a pertinent and potent METAPHOR for this aspect of archetypal
transference.
lung was one of the pioneers of the therapeutic use of countertransference.
Until the 1950s, psychoanalysts, following Freud,
tended to regard countertransference as invariably neurotic, an acti-vation of the analyst’s infantile conflicts and an obstacle to his functioning
(Freud, 1910; 1913). In 1929, lung wrote: ‘You can exert no
influence if you are not susceptible to influence … The patient influences
[the analyst] unconsciously … One of the best known symptoms
of this kind is the counter-transference evoked by the transference’
(CW 16, para. 163). In sum, lung regarded countertransference
as ‘a highly important organ of information’ for an analyst (ibid.).
lung accepted that some countertransferences were not so benign,
referring to ‘psychic infection’ and the dangers of identifying with
the patient (CW 16, paras 358, 365).
Contemporary analytical psychology has deepened this interest of
lung’s in countertransference. Fordham (1957) proposed that an analyst
may be so in tune with his patient’s inner world that he finds
himself feeling or behaving in a way which he can see, with later
understanding, is but an extension of his patient’s intrapsychic processes
projected into him. Fordham called this ‘syntonic’ countertransference.
He contrasted that with ‘illusory’ countertransference
(meaning neurotic responses to the patient on the part of the analyst).
The central feature of this approach, and. its similarity with
present-day psychoanalysis, is that the analyst’s emotions and behaviour
become as much the object of scrutiny as the patient’s (d.
Heimann, 1950; Langs, 1978; Little, 1957; Searles, 1968).
lung’s attitude to the patient’s REGRESSION is of interest. He contended
that analysis may have to support such regression to a very
primitive form of functioning. Following that, psychological growth
may be resumed. This can be contrasted with Freud’s rather more
stringent attitude – something which more recent psychoanalysts
have redressed (Balint, 1968).