Analytical Psychology and Countertransference

Abstract

IN THIS PAPER I SHALL APPROACH the subject of countertransference from the point of view of analytical Uungian) psychology. Since this differs historically and conceptually from classical psychoanalysis I will begin by explicating Jung's position and then consider how his followers have criticized, modified, and developed his point of view. Jung conceived analytic practice to be a dialectical process between two involved persons. By implication he advocated what has lately been called an open systems viewpoint. A closed system is one with clearly defined limits or boundaries. When this obtains there may be two persons related to each other but functioning as two different entities. In their conversation words have an agreed meaning or, if there are dysjunctions in their communications, these can be clarified if necessary by reference to the psychical system of one or the other. Open systems, on the other hand, are those in which boundaries do not have fixed definitions with the result that the two systems interact and change in relation to each other. Difficulties or confusions therefore require a change in both psychical systems before validation is possible.Developments in psychoanalysis appear to have led psychoanalysts close to conceptions being worked on by analytical psychologists, particularly in London. I have used the work of psychoanalysts extensively and I recognize that many of my propositions were considered before I thought of them. However, since this article is about analytical psychology I shall not refer to their specific publications but will content myself by making a general I This paper was written originally for the book Countertransference: The Therapst's Conhibutions to Treatment, ed.

When words do not mean what they say. Self‐agency and the coercive use of language

“…Michael Fordham extended Jung's research in this area, exploring countertransference as an expression of projective identification and as a useful source of information about the patient's state of mind. He went further to suggest that ‘an analyst might find himself behaving in ways that were out of line with what he knew of himself, but syntonic with what he knew of his patient’ and concluded that ‘the whole analytic situation is a mass of illusions, delusions, displacements, projections and introjections’ (Fordham 1996[1979], p. 165 & 172).…”

The Analytic Relationship: Integrating Jungian, Attachment Theory and Developmental Perspectives

“…In analytical psychology, Michael Fordham extended Jung's study of transference and countertransference by exploring these in relation to the work of Klein, Bion and others on projective identification. Fordham finally came to consider countertransference as an expression of projective identification and as a useful source of information about the patient's state of mind, if the analyst accepts that ‘an analyst might find himself behaving in ways that were out of line with what he knew of himself, but syntonic with what he knew of his patient’ (Fordham 1979, p. 165). He suggested that ‘something of the same nature might be contained in countertransference illusions’ and concluded that ‘the whole analytic situation is a mass of illusions, delusions, displacements, projections and introjections’ (ibid., p. 172).…”

Fordham, feeling, and countertransference: reflections on defences of the self

“…But Fordham recognized, when he became affected in ways he did not understand by his patients, that not only does this demonstrate the fallibility of the analyst and ‘reminds the analyst of his tendencies to become irrationally involved’ (Fordham 1979/1996, p. 166), but also it places ‘the analyst on the same level as the patient’ (ibid., p. 166). This Fordham came to regard as the proper description of countertransference, ‘when the interacting systems (of patient and analyst) become obstructed…the term countertransference is appropriate’ (ibid., p. 172).…”