Jung's Conception of Transference

It is sometimes said that you can find anything in Jung's writings—implying that he did not know his own mind. I am not of this opinion. There are variations and minor contradictions in his writings on transference often where there is still controversy today, but, by studying his publications as a whole, a basic consistency running through it all can be clearly defined.

There are, however, important changes in his views that cannot be attributed to the delineation of opposites. More needs to be known of the context in which they were made, for this is either omitted by Jung altogether or not given in sufficient detail. I shall suggest tentative solutions, hoping that in the course of time more information, which may make a better and more reliable conclusion possible, will become available. But even if we knew all the sources of vacillations and even reversed conceptions which are, let me say, like those almost anybody who published so much would make, it would still be necessary to bear in mind Jung's own comment on his method of exposition: ‘… not everything I bring forth is written out of my head, but much of it comes from the heart also, a fact I would beg the gracious reader not to overlook if, following up the intellectual line of thought, he comes upon certain lacunae that have not been properly filled in’ (JUNG 9, p. 118).

In this paper I shall be bringing together much that is familiar. Is it worth while looking again at what we knew long ago? Clearly I think so and my reason is this: to look from time to time at the foundations and incomplete superstructure of a house still in the process of being built shows what is firmly built and what is still in the process of construction. To stand back and look at what has been done helps to orientate us when occupied with details or some particular part of the whole and, most important, makes it impossible to believe that one part is the complete structure.