it:If the client is a troubled person, he cannot possibly fail to rouse difficulties in another person who relates closely with him. He cannot possibly have his troubles all by himself while interacting closely with the therapist. Necessarily, the therapist will experience his own version of the difficulties, twists, and hang-ups which the interaction must have. And only if these do occur can the interaction move beyond them and be therapeutic for the client. In client-centred therapy too, the client repeats his past in his relationship with the therapist. But the way it is dealt with is partly different from the psychoanalytic orientation. Firstly, there is the belief that certain transference reactions - which can be viewed as security measures on the part of the client - will graduallymelt away without explicit working through under the beneficial effect of a good working alliance. Secondly,client-centred therapy does not provide a priority in principle to working with a problem in the here-and-now relationship with the therapist. The criterion for further exploration is, according to Rice, the vividness with which a certain type of problem is experienced, and not where this experience is located on the triangle here-elsewhere-in the past:In a real sense, any member of a class is as worthwhile exploring as any other. Neither the past nor the present has priority, but rather the vividness with which an experience can be recounted by theclient. After all, the more vividly an experience is recounted, the more likely it is to be anexperience that is emotionally important to the client. More adequate processing of any oneexperience should lead to more adaptive responses in a whole range of specific situations. In Rice's view, therefore, the working through of transference reactions in the here-and-now of the therapeutic relationship is not a 'must' but a possibility, a sub-process along with other ones I personally feel that it is nevertheless an important sub-process which comes into prominence especially in the longer therapies. What is then the role of the therapist's transparency when transference reactions are worked through in client-centred therapy). Here are some thoughts.The emphasis is not on working to achieve insight, which consists of recognising and genetically understanding how the client distorts the therapist and relates to him in a structure-bound way, but on the corrective emotional experience:It isn't enough that the patient repeats with the therapist his maladjusted feelings and ways of setting up interpersonal situations. After all, the patient is said to repeat these with everyone in his life, and not only with the therapist. Thus, the sheer repeating, even when it is a concrete reliving, doesn't yet resolve anything. Somehow, with the therapist, the patient doesn't only repeat; he getsbeyond the repeating. He doesn't only relive; he lives further, if he resolves problems experientially.(Gendlin, 1968, p.222.)This living further' sometimes requires more than neutral benevolencIt requires the therapist not to present himself as a white screen but - apart from, and in addition to, his empathic interventions - to deal in a transparent way, at the right moment, with what lives in the interaction between8 of