Interpretation in Jungian Analysis

Art and Technique

Mark Winborn

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138058088
• eBook ISBN: 9781351674287
• Topic: Psychologie
• Subtopic: Psychische Gesundheit in der Psychologie

An American Board & Academy of Psychoanalysis Book Prize Finalist 2019!

Analytic interpretation is fundamental to the process of psychoanalysis, Jungian analysis, and psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Interpretation is the medium by which the psychoanalytic art form is transmitted. What one chooses to say in analysis, why one chooses it, how one says it, when one says it; these are the building blocks of the interpretive process and the focus of Interpretation in Jungian Analysis: Art and Technique.

This volume is the first of its kind in the literature of analytical psychology. Until now, the process of interpretation has been addressed only briefly in general Jungian texts. Interpretation in Jungian Analysis provides an in-depth exploration of the process, including the history of analytic technique, the role of language in analytic therapy, the poetics and metaphor of interpretation, and the relationship between interpretation and the analytic attitude. In addition, the steps involved with the creation of clear, meaningful, and transformative interpretations are plainly outlined. Throughout the book, clinical examples and reader exercises are provided to deepen the learning experience. The influence of the Jungian perspective on the interpretative process is outlined, as are the use of analytic reverie and confrontation during the analytic process.

In addition to the historical, technical, and theoretic aspects of interpretation, this book also focuses on the artistic and creative elements that are often overlooked in the interpretive process. Ultimately, cultivating fluidity within the interpretive process is essential to engaging the depth and complexity of the psyche. Interpretation in Jungian Analysis will be of great interest to psychoanalysts and psychotherapists of all theoretical orientations and will be essential reading for students of analytical psychology.

Chapter 1

An overview of technique and interpretation

Technique in Analytical Psychology

Before delving into interpretation, it is necessary to locate interpretation within the broader context of analytic therapy and training in analytic therapy. In most psychoanalytic institutes the training focuses on two areas, theory and technique, whereas in Jungian institutes the training focus includes theory, technique, and the study of archetypal content. However, the emphasis given to these areas differs significantly between psychoanalytic institutes and Jungian institutes. Psychoanalytic institutes give significantly greater weight to the technique of analysis, while Jungian institutes place significant emphasis on archetypal content such as fairytales, myths, religion, and alchemy. The technique of dream analysis¹ is emphasized in Jungian institutes, but the techniques associated with the ebb and flow of the interaction between analyst and analysand receive comparatively little attention.

As I mentioned in the Introduction, technique refers to the methods or processes by which the analytic interaction takes place. That is, how the analyst listens, begins and ends an analysis, establishes the analytic frame,² develops a therapeutic alliance,³ works within the transference–countertransference matrix, engages the patient’s defenses and resistance, interprets patient’s dreams, and interprets the analytic interaction. These fundamental areas of technique were initially outlined by Freud (Ellman, 1991) but have been elucidated and expanded upon within the psychoanalytic world by Fenichel (1941), Stone (1961), Greenson (1967), Auld and Hyman (1991), and Etchegoyen (2005), among many others. The psychoanalytic literature also includes numerous texts focused on specific areas of analytic technique. Technique provides the underlying structure of the analytic process – the unseen but necessary support for the art of analysis. The integration of technique facilitates an understanding of why analytic therapy requires the unique shape it does and assists in cultivating a bird’s-eye overview of the analytic process. However, each analysis unfolds in its own unique way despite relying on a common underlying structure of technique that serves to maximize the engagement of unconscious processes. Connolly (2008) highlights the intimate relationship between technique, theory, and the creative art of analysis:

Technique. . . derives from Aristotle’s notion of techne or ars, the name given to that skillful activity (poesis) that accomplishes its purpose in the production of a particular work that is never already given but which can or cannot appear and in which the certainty of success is always in doubt. In techne, method and theory emerge from the thoughtful examination of the way in which the production of the work is carried out.

(p. 482)

In this regard, the structuring and creative aspects of analysis intermingle in the same manner as in jazz improvisation. The minimal but necessary form provided by the underlying chord structure, tempo, and rhythm serves to shape the musical exchange between soloists in the jazz setting (Barrett, 2000; Knoblauch, 2000). Barrett describes the improvisational process as follows:

To say that jazz music is improvised means that jazz music is spontaneous and unrehearsed. . . . When improvising, one journeys into the unknown and is expected to create coherent musical ideas that are novel and unpredictable. . . the improviser makes connections between the old and new material and adds to the unfolding scheme.

(pp. 232, 233, 238)

The structure is sufficiently minimal that significant variation of expression is encouraged, yet it provides a sufficient organizing influence to prevent disintegration into musical chaos. Enactments, acting out, and “wild analysis” (Freud, 1910) could be considered the equivalent of chaos in the analytic setting.

In contrast to the psychoanalytic literature, there is a relative scarcity of Jungian literature on analytic technique, with only a handful of books focused on the technique of Jungian analysis.⁴ Most of the emphasis on technique in Analytical Psychology is on dream interpretation rather than the techniques associated with establishing and maintaining the analytic interaction when dream analysis is not occurring. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Jungian volumes have been written that focus on dream interpretation, but there is little Jungian literature on technique and the processes that occur during analytic sessions. The technique associated with analytic interaction receives the least attention during the training of Jungian analytic candidates. Informal surveys, conducted during seminars I have taught, revealed that most Jungian candidates had not had a seminar specifically focused on interpretation. During my own training, I did not have any courses specifically focused on analytic interpretation, but I was fortunate to have a few mentors who emphasized and modeled the importance of interpretation and technique. In contrast, psychoanalytic institutes typically have multiple courses on technique; often during each year of their curriculum.

The general avoidance of technique within the Jungian world can largely be traced back to Jung’s attitude towards technique which carried over to many in the generations that followed him. Adler (1967) summarizes the traditional Jungian position as follows:

One of the main differences between Analytical Psychology and other schools lies in the undogmatic approach of Analytical Psychology to each individual case. The basic presupposition from which Analytical Psychology starts is that each patient has his own particular and “personal” psychology necessitating an approach which varies with each individual case. . . . Such a conception must obviously involve a considerable limitation on general technique, since the whole point of a technique is to provide certain universally applicable rules.

(p. 23)

Typologically, Jung was an intuitive (like many who have been drawn to his ideas) who had an aversion to methodological approaches. Dehing (1992, p. 42) indicates that Jung detested any sort of systemization. Jung also established his position as a reaction against elements of Freud’s theory and technique (Zinkin, 1969). Additionally, Jung felt that the pursuit of Analytical Psychology was so unique to the individual personality of the practitioner that he did not believe one should provide specific guidelines as to the practice of Analytical Psychology. While Jung’s adoption of an anti-methodological position may have been useful in differentiating Analytical Psychology from Freudian psychoanalysis, I propose that he also discarded an important element of the transformative process.

According to Fordham (1998), the lack of focus on technique had a detrimental effect on the development of well-rounded analysts, “The methods used by Jung, and more so by his followers, were not applicable often in the rough and tumble of everyday psychotherapy when the careful analysis of sexuality and childhood was often needed but neglected” (pp. 56–57). Fordham is alluding to the reality that many patients presenting for therapy or analysis are not initially well suited for a classical Jungian or archetypally focused analysis. Such a situation arises with patients who arrive for therapy not yet functioning at a symbolic level and still needing to address areas of immature psychological development, deficits in identity and self-structure, or experiencing difficulty with affective–behavioral regulation.

Kirsch (2000) captures the essence these two primary attitudes towards technique in Analytical Psychology:

Jung eschewed the word “technique,” but there was a general way in which he worked. He used dream analysis, active imagination, and amplification in face-to-face, relatively infrequent sessions, and fostered an active dialectic between himself and his patient. Today there is wide variation in the use of these basic analytic methods. The more developmentally oriented Jungians use a couch, require more frequent sessions, interpret the transference, and focus less on dreams, amplification and active imagination.

(p. 247)

Zinkin (1969) argues that, “both models are essential and complementary” (p. 131). I maintain that the divide between these two positions can be diminished and that a greater emphasis on technique can be assimilated by Analytical Psychology without losing the analytic values so central to Jung’s opus. With that perspective in mind, we can now turn our attention to a synopsis of interpretation.

What is an interpretation?

The origins of psychoanalytic interpretation can be traced back to a twelfth-century Latin term, interpretati, which means to explain, expound, or understand (Blue & Harrang, 2016). Interpretation is also connected to the field of hermeneutics, “the study of the methodological principles of interpretation” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.), often in reference to the textual analysis of literature, scripture, and alchemy as well as art and history. In analytic therapy, at the most fundamental level, “Interpretation seeks to make conscious the unconscious” (Etchegoyen, 2005, p. 386).

Contrary to some perceptions, a psychoanalytic interpretation is not everything that is spoken to the patient in a session. It is a specific type of verbal interaction set apart from other types of therapeutic utterances – such as asking questions, reframing patient statements, affective mirroring, empathic statements, or reassurance. As Oremland (1991) points out, while all of these interventions may contribute to the progress of an analysis, only interpretation is specifically intended to facilitate the engagement and understanding of the patient’s unconscious:

It is important, however, to recognize that interpretation is interactive and that all aspects of psychotherapeutic interaction are just that, various kinds of interactions. Yet, interpretation as an intervention is qualitatively different from other interactions in that its aim is solely to add explicit knowledge, whereas interactive interventions remain largely experiential. Most important, when transferential, interpretation makes the interaction itself the object of analysis.

(p. 10)

In general, interventions that focus on reassurance, advice-giving, problem-solving, encouragement, consolidation of self-esteem, prevention of regression, maintenance of existing defense mechanisms, and maintenance of reality orientation are considered to be supportive interventions (Klerman et al., 1984; Werman, 1984). While these interventions support the patient’s conscious perception of the relationship as helpful, accepting, understanding, and supportive, they are not intended or expected to increase the patient’s insight, engage unconscious patterns, or facilitate the transformation of psychological structures. All types of psychotherapy or counseling include supportive inventions to some degree, and some forms of therapy focus almost exclusively on supportive interventions. In contrast, analytic therapies seek to minimize the utilization of supportive or suggestive interventions while emphasizing interventions, such as interpretation, that engage unconscious processes, increase insight and consciousness, and carry the potential for psychic transformation (Auld & Hyman, 1991). Auld and Hyman indicate, “Psychoanalytic therapy is interpretive rather than suggestive. . . . Principally, the therapist helps through making interpretations” (p. 19), and that, “The warm relationship is the necessary context for the interpretive actions of the therapist, because interpretations necessarily involve some narcissistic affront to the patient” (p. 35). Vivona (2013) offers a fuller explication of the interaction between the analytic relationship and the interpretive process:

The relationship between analyst and patient fosters change when the analyst can articulate, clearly and with empathy, the nature of the relational experiences in which the two participate. It is not insight in the abstract that helps, not the dissemination of ideas separate from the emotional relational context that brings those ideas to mind. It is not warm or benevolent actions or attitudes, not the way the analyst is or seems, separate from what he thinks and says. It is the use of speech to articulate, with an attitude of empathy and openness, what is being experienced in relation to the other and the meaning that can be made of that experience. The interpretation is the analyst’s authentic, empathic response to the patient.

(p. 1131)

Jung (1954b), like Auld and Hyman, cautions against the use of suggestion in analytic therapy:

Methods of treatment based on suggestion are deceptive makeshifts; they are incompatible with the principles of analytical therapy and should be avoided if at all possible. Naturally, suggestion can only be avoided if the doctor is conscious of its possibility. There is at the best of times always enough – and more than enough – unconscious suggestion.

(para. 315)

In any analytic therapy, a balance is necessary between the supportive and interpretive aspects based on the needs, psychological makeup, and presenting problem of the patient. The greater the severity of the patient’s psychological state and the lower the patient’s resources, the greater the supportive element may need to be. There is rarely an optimal analytic hour in which only interpretive interventions are utilized; there is always an approximation and balancing of these therapeutic characteristics. In addition, within every session, there is a need for flexibility of technique that allows for moment-to-moment shifts to meet the needs of the situation. The goal is awareness of the continuum between supportive and analytic interventions with an ongoing intention of moving closer to the interpretive end of the continuum (see Figure 1.1).

The following exchange is an example of an intervention that could have remained primarily supportive but shifted to an interpretive intervention as the exchange progressed. The exchange takes place at the conclusion of a session. The patient, John, was a student in his late thirties. He manifested sociopathic tendencies and a previous history of drug and alcohol abuse. John had lived a marginal existence for much of his life but seemed to have arrived at a frame of mind where he could begin focusing on lasting transformation. In the session, we had been focused on John’s anxiety regarding interactions with his mother. He had recently received a letter and check from his mother and was experiencing anxiety and ambivalence about feeling he should write her back. I made an observation about the level of anxiety she constellated in him and made reference to something he had said, during our previous session, about having to drink two beers before returning a call to his mother. The patient responded, “Oh you remembered.” John was moved that I remembered what he had said in the previous session. From a supportive perspective, I could have concluded the session, or I could have said “Of course, I remembered,” but neither of those interventional options would have helped John know anything about himself or how he utilizes me. Instead, I choose to continue with an observation of his surprise:

Figure 1.1 The supportive–interpretive continuum

A:	You seem surprised that I remembered.
P:	I didn’t mean any offense. I just meant that none of my therapists before have ever remembered what I’ve said from week to week.
A:	I didn’t think you ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Praise
• Interpretation in Jungian Analysis
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Acknowledgments
• Permissions and Credits
• Introduction
• 1 An Overview of Technique and Interpretation
• 2 Foundations of Transformational Discourse: Language, Metaphor, and Poetics in Interpretation
• 3 The Interpretive cycle
• 4 The Analytic Attitude and its Underlying Principles
• 5 The Interpretive Process
• 6 Categories of Interpretation
• 7 Jungian Perspectives on Interpretation
• 8 Reverie and Interpretation
• 9 Confrontation and Interpretation
• 10 Fluidity and Consolidation
• Conclusion
• Appendix: Research on Interpretation in Analytic Therapy
• Bibliography
• Index