Comment

An outstanding feature of this paper is the way in which the author brings order into the varieties of the analyst-patient relationship in a way to which the reader can readily respond. We are helped to recognize our own most favoured mode of handling and interpreting transference material and to reflect on those of others.

In the main, it seems to me that Jungian analysts more often fit into categories one and two, though it may be more typical of Jungians to vary their approach to meet the needs of different patients. On the other hand, this may be due rather to reluctance to disclose deviations from the classical models. As is well-known, Jung was against schools because of the deadening effect of conformity. He is reputed to have said to a colleague who wished to start one, ‘I see you are intent on hardening my arteries!’

The problem of counter-transference, long used as a dirty word, is touched upon in this paper, but to understand Jung's ideas on the transference it must be seen as an underlying preoccupation, highlighted, as were other matters, by the differences between Freud and Jung. For instance, I have always regarded Jung's description of the analyst-patient relationship quoted in this paper—that of two human beings sharing suffering—as referring primarily to an attitude of mind on the part of the analyst, and one which is hard to sustain when the transference is of archetypal, i.e. inhumanly, good and evil figures. I know of no analyst who goes in for ‘the conscious and deliberate introduction of the analyst's problems’ which would seem to be a misunderstanding of Jung's description of the attitude necessary when working with patients in the latter stages of individuation (the stage of transformation) when the analyst should be prepared to be frank about his views. This would be at the stage quoted by Miss King when the patient has recognized the transference and the personality of the analyst. I should also like to add that there are also certain border