Marriages brought into the consulting-room and the transference interpretation*

In what follows I will be presenting a situation which, in broad terms, will be familiar to most psychotherapists. My views of it, the psychological model which informs my views, and the techniques (in all their flexibility) which come into question, these are all my own; but I am, myself, steeped in the model of the psyche that Jung evolved, and that has been modified, refined, developed and expanded by other analytical psychologists, many of whom have introduced much of value from psychoanalytic contributors, as well as other disciplines pertinent to the practice of psychotherapy. I hope to illuminate some of the insights, and the practical implications of those insights, that arise within the Jungian model and are peculiar to it. I believe them to have especial value because in addition to the vital task of repairing the holding, or maternal, ego, there is a richness in the model that fosters the drive towards individuation.

A symbol is not the same as a sign. Whereas a sign refers to something else specifically (consider a signpost), a symbol refers to something which, for the person (or people) in whom the symbol has arisen, cannot yet be grasped in any other way. Marriage as a symbol was explored in great depth by Jung; it involves a coming together of opposites. The way in which the actual (or external) marriage interweaves with the inner psychic contents, their conflicts, mergings, hates and loves and so on, is tackled (in a very partial way) in this article. In my example not only is there a difficult relationship between two people (this would constitute the external, or interpersonal viewpoint),