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.
The analytical relationship consists of various layers in depth. One of these may be seen as the layer of equality, and on this the transference/counter-transference dynamism has its main field of action. The idea of the twin pair is derived from Jung's thesis in which thinking as well as feeling in opposites features. Any attempt to leave out the counter-transference in the contemplation of the relationship as a whole strikes me as alien to the way analytical psychologists look at things.
The psycho-analysts who, on the whole, were much earlier aware of the counter-transference phenomenon used to regard it as an unavoidable but undesirable element in analysis. Money-Kyrle (1956) in his recent excellent contribution to the subject says (p. 360): “We used to think of it [counter-transference] mainly as a personal disturbance to be analysed away in ourselves. We now also think of it as having its causes, and effects, in the patient and therefore as an indication of something to be analysed in him.” The author thus confirms the impression one gains from earlier papers by Paula Heimann (1950), Margaret Little (1951), and others, that counter-transference is, in fact, unreservedly accepted as an integral part of psychoanalytical procedure. Money-Kyrle still maintains in his article that “the discovery that counter-transference can be usefully employed does not imply that it has ceased ever to be a serious impediment.” Yet a little later (p. 361) he describes the ideal condition of analysis as one in which “the analyst's counter-transference feelings will be confined to that sense of empathy with the patient on which his insight is based.” I feel that this is a most important statement which, perhaps, shows that the author is moving towards a position where the negative aspect may eventually seem less important to him than the helpful one.
Money-Kyrle, however, in the passage just quoted, does not speak about counter-transference as such, but instead about counter-transfere