Hi David,
You ask: If something is transference, then is it necessarily in the
realm of I-It relatedness?
I think Buber would say that no relationship is purely I-It or I-Thou. All
relationships probably fluctuate to a greater or lesser extent between the
two.
Where does I-It relationship end and I-Thou begin?
If one defines transference as "the tendency to repeat, in a current setting,
attitudes, feelings, impulses, and desires experienced or generated in early
life in relation to important figures in the individual's development," then
to the extent that a relationship is a transference relationship I don't think
it is I-Thou. The "I" of the I-Thou relationship is different from the "I" of
the I-It. It is undivided. It approaches situations without a formula, with
no preconceived notions. It takes up things as unrelated to other things.
"Where the rationalist draws out the general qualities of a thing and places
them in categories, the loving man sees what is unique in a thing, itself."
It's characterized by presentness, seeing the other as unique, the never
encountered person they are. It's willing to live with "holy insecurity" not
knowing how things will turn out. It has overcome the fear of the defensive
man and is willing to speak the truth. It has no ready made answers to life,
yet is an integrated "I" who can "stand his ground."
Real relationship calls the "I" of the client into being. 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. I think the greatest examples of I-Thou
relating in therapy are given in the novels of Irvin Yalom.
Regards,
Bonnie
|
