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.
IN THIS PAPER I SHALL APPROACH the subject of countertransference from the point of view of analytical (Jungian) 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