Technique and Counter-Transference: Part I

Analytical Psychologists as a whole have paid little attention to the subject of technique. Yet without developing a clear picture of what analysts do—and that is what technique implies—data obtained in the analytic situation cannot be fruitfully compared, no scientific studies can be made and communication between colleagues becomes difficult, if not meaningless.

Besides Jung's publications, a number of books dealing with the practice of analytical psychology have appeared (cf. (Adler 1961), (Baynes 1955), (Harding 1965), (Wickes 1959) et al.). They are mainly expositions of Jung's classical methods of dream analysis, active imagination and amplification; they do not attempt to cover in detail the content of day-to-day interviews. This omission is sometimes deliberate, at least while analysis is in progress (cf. Kirsch, 1961, p. 171), and sometimes expresses anxiety lest study of the analytic situation, with a view to bringing analysts' activities to light, might interfere with valuable spontaneity in their relation to patients.

As an amplification of these doubts, reference has more than once been made to the alchemical analogy of the vas bene clausum (the well-sealed vessel) suggesting that such living matters cannot with safety be discussed outside therapeutic interviews (cf. Kirsch, 1961). These objections have not commended themselves to me. They belong to the ‘secret tradition’ composed of sayings passed on from one analyst to the other that are not discussed in detail nor submitted to precise formulation for critical evaluation. The influence of these private sayings depends very largely on exploitation of residual transferences and so are not intended for serious consideration.

In London, interest had been directed to elucidating what analysts do (cf. (Moody 1955), (Plaut 1956)), and I myself contributed by making a study of the transference giving particular attention to the counter-transference (Fordham, 1957, 1960 and 1964). That psychoanalyst