Analyst-Patient Interaction, Were Not Without Very Large Political and Institutional Effects, Which Form Their Backdrop
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Analyst—Patient Interaction Collected Papers on Technique Michael Fordham Edited by Sonu Shamdasani London and New York First published 1996 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 © 1996 the Estate of Dr Michael Fordham, Sonu Shamdasani All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book has been requested ISBN 0-203-36019-2 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-37275-1 (Adobe eReader Format) ISBN 0-415-12184-1 (Print Edition) Contents Introduction 1 Sonu Shamdasani 1 Notes on the transference (1957) 12 2 Counter-transference (1960) 41 3 Suggestions towards a theory of supervision (1961) 49 4 Reply to Dr Edinger (1961) 57 5 A comment on James Hillman’s papers (1962) 59 6 Problems of a training analyst (undated) 62 7 Reflections on training analysis (1968) 73 8 Technique and counter-transference (1969) 84 9 Reply to Plaut’s ‘Comment’ (1970) 105 10 The interrelation between patient and therapist (1972) 109 11 Jung’s conception of transference (1974) 113 12 Defences of the self (1974) 138 13 Analyst—patient interaction (1975) 146 14 Discussion of Thomas B.Kirsch, ‘The practice of multiple 155 analysis in analytical psychology’ (1976) 15 Analytical psychology and counter-transference (1979) 159 16 Contribution to symposium ‘How do I assess progress in 175 supervision?’ (1982) 17 How I do analysis (1988) 178 18 Fordham’s rejoinder to Spiegelman’s comments (1988) 184 19 The supposed limits of interpretation (1991) 186 20 Rejoinder to Nathan Schwartz-Salant (1991) 195 21 On not knowing beforehand (1993) 197 iv Sources 205 Bibliography 207 Index 213 Introduction Sonu Shamdasani It would not surprise many people if the Collected Papers on Technique of an analyst who started practising in the days before established training might have little interest today, in an age of increasing professionalisation and state legitimation. For those contemporary clinicians for whom the invention of new conceptual nomenclature spells more than the history of the field, such a volume might simply seem to indicate developmental positions that have long been superseded. That such is not the case stems not only from the significance of the transformation of practice and the new lines of theoretical articulations that these papers opened, but also from the clearsighted way in which they raise controversial issues and problematics that are by no means stilled. All the less reason, then, to be assured that one can skip over these papers in the belief that what is of value in them has already been assimilated and augmented in subsequent work by others. The controversies that still surround Michael Fordham’s writings on technique attest to their significance. What makes them essential reading, irrespective of whether one agrees with their conclusions—and anyone who knows him will be familiar with the way he continually questions and reworks his previous conclusions—is that they have staked out inescapable markers in this field. The papers themselves provide their best introduction and overview, particularly as the recapitulation of his previous views on topics to set the contours of new problematics is a rhetorical form that Fordham favours. Given this, I will leave my remarks here to marginal comments—rather than give a schematic account which is in some respects superfluous, and which would be hard placed to do justice to the careful and intricate elucidation, which is their strength. Jung’s work left an ambiguous legacy for his followers. Amongst the problematic issues that he raised for the ‘practice of psychotherapy’, to use the title of the relevant volume of his Collected Works, are the following: the relations between culture and therapy, between technique and spontaneity in practice, between ‘reductive’ and ‘synthetic’ methods in analysis; issues concerning individuation and the ends of analysis, democratic and aristocratic views of the suitability of different types of analysis; questions on the very possibility of technique, clinical theory, and the validity of diagnosis; theses on the merits of the use of the ‘chair’ as opposed to the ‘couch’; the differences between free association, types of interpretation and active imagination—and all these shot through with an unabated mimetic rivalry in 2 INTRODUCTION relation to Freud and psycho-analysis. It is important to note that one of the main areas of contention between Jung and Freud was the question of technique: for the theoretical modifications that Jung was introducing were leading to a changed conception of analytic technique. At the same time classical psychoanalytic technique was not simply rejected by Jung, but pragmatically relativised within a more pluralistic conception of therapy. Jung was always interested in cases that were at the borders of what was considered analysable, as witnessed, for instance, by his early work with schizophrenia. His technical modifications may be seen to stem from problems posed by cases traditionally regarded as recalcitrant to what was being formulated as classical psychoanalytic technique—such as, ‘psychotic’, ‘borderline’ and elderly patients. For instance, in 1926 in ‘The relations between the ego and the unconscious’ (Jung, 1928, p. 130) Jung claimed that classical psychoanalytic technique was completely at a loss when it came to dealing with the problems posed by what he termed the archetypal transference—when larger than life images, such as that of saviours and devils, are projected onto the analyst. This was because for Jung such images did not have an ‘origin’ in a parental prototype, to which they could be traced back. He claimed that this explained numerous failures and relapses in psychoanalysis. His formulation of supplementary techniques, such as the synthetic method of interpretation, amplification and active imagination, were attempts to deal with such instances. It was primarily Fordham who inherited and took on these aspects of Jung’s estate, and who attempted to evaluate the clinical relevance of these technical innovations. This aspect of the transmission of the responsibility for clinical research is movingly brought out in one of Jung’s letters to Fordham, on the topic of children’s dreams, on which Jung lectured to his seminar group (Jung, 1987). Jung wrote: As I told you I know that it is a pity that I never found the time to do more work on children’s ‘great’ dreams, but I’m afraid that if I should tackle such a job I would have to do it in a thorough way and for that purpose I would have to elaborate on a much bigger material. This task is definitely too much for me. I cannot think of beginning anything of such a kind as long as I’m not through with the work in hand, namely the Mysterium Coniunctionis. And what with my correspondence and all sorts of urgent things cropping up continually I just cannot see my way to anything so ambitious as a book about children’s dreams. This would really be your province and I should like to persuade you to try your hand on such material. You are welcome to my material and I think you are in a position to add more to it. If you try it you will see that it is no easy thing, but tremendously interesting. For a time I was utterly fascinated by the beauty and profundity of such early childhood dreams. There I observed some of the best examples of autochthonous reconstructions of archetypal ideas. Through your careful investigations of my books you have acquired enough orientation over the already existing material INTRODUCTION 3 that could assist you in a thorough examination of children’s dreams. For most of their collective symbolism you would have the amplifying material ready-made. I’m now at an age when it becomes unwise to continue the great adventure of pioneering research. I must leave the joy and the despair of it to younger forces. (Jung to Fordham, February 22nd, 1952, private possession, Michael Fordham)1 When Fordham wrote his first papers on technique, it was not only the positions he took that aroused controversy in the Jungian world, but also whether technique was a subject that could be studied. In his Bailey Island seminar in 1936, whilst discussing the reasons why he felt that it was important for an individual to have an analyst of both sexes, Jung said: but these are technical problems. I could give you a whole book about these peculiar technical secrets, but I cannot go into all that. (Jung, 1936, p. 156) For the classical school of Jungian analysis, these lacunae were made into a virtue. What Jung had not formulated was regarded as unformulatable. Further, it was claimed that the effects of formulations of technique would restrict the essential uniqueness of the analytic encounter. Fordham contested the representation of Jung’s position that was used to support these claims. He further felt that this tendency had resulted in making analytical psychology into a quasi-religious cult, which he found unacceptable. He writes that his book The Objective Psyche (1958) was in part written to combat this tendency (Fordham, 1985, p.