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.
From Dr N. A. Trahms
Sir,
As I opened the January 1974 issue of your journal, I was attracted to the article titled, ‘Jung's concept of transference’ by Dr Fordham. ‘Ah,’ I thought. ‘Interesting subject; can't wait to see what he has to say about it!’
However, as I delved into the piece I was more and more chagrined to discover that ‘oral’, ‘anal’ and ‘erotic’ seemed to be what Dr Fordham was discussing. It was indeed irritating to find the same old Freudian ideas of infantile sexuality passed off as Jung's contribution to transference. I quote Dr Fordham, pages 17 and 18:
Jung, was, however, correct in a very important respect. It is not sexuality as a physical, orgasmic discharge between two adult people that is the point, but rather the incestuous need for intimate bodily and spiritual intimacy, unrealizable for adult persons in the flesh, because it can only occur between mother and infant.
I am writing this letter to protest this derogation of the religious spirit which was so much in evidence in Jung's work, and, by innuendo, the insulting attitude towards individuals striving to reach spiritual insight.
If Dr Fordham wishes to be a Freudian, I would respectfully suggest he call himself such. I hope you will have additional articles on Jung's concept of transference, with some exploration of archetypal, collective, ethnic, religious, racial, familiar and universal elements within this subject.
In closing, I wish to give my compliments to your Journal, which I have found very helpful in my clinical practice of psychiatry and stimulating in my personal continuing study of psychology.
NANCY A. TRAHMS
From Dr Michael Fordham