You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
I AM PARTICULARLY GLAD that Kirsch should have made a coherent, informative and much needed statement on 'Multiple Analyses'. Heretofore only Hillman (1962) has published anything about it.
I have no experience of concurrent multiple analyses, but the theoretical part of Kirsch's paper contains the necessary conceptions for so doing. Why therefore do I not try to send my patients to other analysts when they are in difficulties which stem from sexual and typological problems? The answer can be developed from a statement in Kirsch's paper. He states, "Hence, one analyst only constellates one aspect of the unconscious. …" According to my experience this is false, because the way I and trainees in supervision constellate patients varies from the start of any analysis, and it continues to change as the analysis proceeds. This, as I understand it, is what Jung elaborates in his Psychology of the Transference: the whole individuation process can become re-enacted in the transference.
I believe that we have to look for the source of our differences in the area of technique despite Kirsch's disclaimer. I assume that Kirsch follows the usual Jungian practice of seeing patients twice, or possibly three times a week, and that he sits facing them in a