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.
In this article, Hepburn appreciatively, but critically, reviews and evaluates Strachey's (1934) seminal article on the therapeutic action of interpretation in analysis. As I have pointed out in Interpretation in Jungian Analysis (Winborn 2018), there is a relative scarcity of Jungian literature on analytic technique and only a handful of articles on interpretation specifically. In my experience, technique in general, and interpretation in particular, are areas which receive the least focus in Jungian training programs, while receiving a great deal of attention in other psychoanalytic traditions. The general bias against technique and interpretation within the Jungian community can be traced back, in part, to Jung's negative attitude towards technique, which carried over to many in the generations that followed him. In doing so, I believe an essential analytic skill often remains undeveloped for many Jungians. My hope is that this article by Hepburn about Strachey's (1934) article will prompt a re-consideration of the role interpretation can play in the course of analysis.
Strachey was the first to clearly articulate a methodology of interpretation and also the first to offer a conceptual understanding of the process by which analytic interpretation impacts the psychological situation of the patient. Strachey's treatise on interpretation is firmly grounded in Freud's structural model which understands the psyche through the tripartite structures of Id,
Ego, and Superego. Hepburn takes up the challenge of critiquing and updating Strachey's model of interpretative action through the contemporary perspectives of relational and intersubjective psychoanalysis, as well as the findings of infant research. In particular, she highlights the need to take into consideration the patient's defences, state of mind, and overall personality configuration, as well as the intersubjective field of the analytic dyad during any interpretative process.
As Hepburn points out, Freud asse