Jung's Transference on Freud: Its Jewish Element

The development of the friendship between Freud and Jung, its depth and its tragic ending, has brought a stream of comment from both sides, as well as from scholars who are neither analysts nor analysands.

I limit myself here to the question of the transference between Freud and Jung. In our analytical language, we speak of transference and countertransference. But, in fact, both are the same—follow the same psychological dynamics. These terms simply indicate whether the patient projects certain contents on the analyst and/or whether it is the other way around. As a rule, both transference and countertransference exist simultaneously.

It is now possible to study the character of the relationship between Freud and Jung—its scientific as well as its personal aspects—since, as of 1974, the correspondence between these two men has been published in both German and English.1

It was Freud who first observed the phenomenon of the transference as a frequent occurrence in analytical work. He described it and developed a theory about it. In fact, transference and its analysis became a central pillar in Freudian psychoanalysis. In Jungian analysis, it also plays a great role; but its interpretation and its practical use are quite different.

Transference is a special case of projection (a term also coined by Freud to describe the fact that certain contents of the unconscious are perceived to exist in another person, nation, or culture; but because they are unconscious in the individual, they appear to exist in the other person and not in oneself). Projections occur everywhere between people. They are particularly easy to observe in politics. They exist,