I’m afraid this one will require some effort.. (but it will be worth it!)
I spent part of yesterday reading this looooong but incredibly interesting article about the role of the psychotherapist in understanding and using “the transference” so that the client not only gains insight from their therapy but also change.
My understanding or what I have drawn from this article:
1. If a therapist explains to the client what is happening in the transference then they may be exercising their own narcissism – their desire to “show off” their understanding, risking the recreation of themselves as parent/authority figure/epic transference monster rather than anything therapeutic. Therefore they need to observe but not use this insight – increasing use of silence and “blank screen”
2. You cannot have an objective view of the transference of which you yourself (as therapist or indeed as client) are a part.
3. That case studies are so powerful because they allow us to be observers of the relationship – an objective view of both sides actions, words and behaviours which is the best way to “see” the therapy and can, of course, never be achieved by the therapist.
What the author describes as “the role of that outside neutral observer that is impossible inside the dialogue”. Unless of course you design and build a fantastic Seussian apparatus for meta-observation, thus bypassing all potential issues of quantum interference, Heisenberg’s uncertainty or observer effect.
Patent pending. 
