{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021712907117008445, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.693548387096774, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Asymmetry and mutuality in the analytic relationship: lessons for today from the relationship between Freud and Ferenczi].

Against the background of the controversy between Freud and Ferenczi on the nature of the psychoanalytic relationship, Hoffer examines the perennial issue of the way in which analysts come to terms with the warring claims of asymmetry (Freud) and mutuality (Ferenczi) in analysis. While discerning an inherent tendency towards mutuality in the psychoanalytic constellation, the author nevertheless calls for the upholding of asymmetry because the psychoanalytic relationship is not a relationship "of the usual kind". The analyst, he contends, must sustain the tension between mutuality and asymmetry and use this reflected tension as a therapeutic instrument for fathoming the patient's psychic reality.