In a message dated 98-01-11 14:29:38 EST, Bonnie wrote:

<<...An I-It relationship can be the first step in an I-Thou relationship or a
block to it.  When the therapist is willing to risk himself he makes it easier
for the client to take the plunge into the stream of experiencing.
Spontaneity and reciprocity characterize I-Thou relating.  The therapist must
be willing to be changed by the patient, willing to invent a new therapy for
each individual patient.  The therapist can only speak the "I" with his whole
being, with presentness, intensity, ineffability.>>

Bonnie--

I am reminded of a moment with my first therapy supervisor which I'll never
forget.  Undoubtedly he was aware of the rigidity of my technique and style of
being with patients at that time, in the days when I believed, neurotically,
that there was "one way" of doing analytic work, formulating, and interpreting
(scientific and methodical, in contrast to spontaneous, etc.)  I had been
seeing a teenager twice-weekly for a lengthy period of time, a young man
(about 15) who was living in a foster care setting, who was quite suspicious,
withdrawn, and distant in relation to others (among other problems).  He had
been subjected to abuse and neglect by his birth parents, and he generally had
great difficulty experiencing and expressing emotions, and allowing himself
spontaneity in relation to me and to others in general.  In one therapy
session with the youngster, and in relation to something which he had said, I
became uncharacteristically spontaneous and cracked a joke, which had an
interpretive element to it.  The boy broke up in laughter, and we both laughed
heartily, in part because he knew just what my point was, but also I think
because we both had the acute sense that we had suddenly developed a new and
refreshing aspect in our relationship.

When I reported this piece of the process to my supervisor, he said, "David,
NOW you have become a psychotherapist FOR THIS BOY."   It was a rich and
revelatory moment for me.  It taught me that to maintain the same style with
every patient is to treat them like a "thing"--in the I-It realm--and that
being helpful to a patient demands that we develop a therapy relationship WITH
THEM--in the I-Thou realm which reaches out and responds to their uniqueness.
But it also highlights the other side--how this can only be accomplished if we
remain open ourselves to our own spontaneity.

I think psychoanalysis has fallen short of depicting what "is" when there is
no transference, and that transference can only be meaningful in relation to
something which it is not, and perhaps that's where the existentialists come
in to clarify things.  I have heard analytic teachers of mine all too often
fall back on the notion that "transference is ubiquitous" and is omnipresent
in all relatedness, and although I think there is some truth in that, it also
makes the totality of relationships seem quite unreal and shadowy.  Can
transference even exist if there is no counterpart to it which reflects
authentic relatedness (a critique which R. May offers)?   I think not.

Thank you for the rich ideas in your postings!  It seems there is no simple
way to discern "authenticity" from "transference" without fleshing out the
phenomenology of each position, which you have done rather admirably.

David Mittelman