Critical Jungian Studies

Critical Jungian Studies Paul Budding Second Edition “What psychology of any stripe should do is to prove, not presuppose, its insights.” (Robert Segal) 2009 Lu Lu Publishing CONTENTS Introduction Jung in Context: The historical context of Jungian Analytical Psychology Schools of Jungian Analytical Psychology Applying a Reformed Complex Psychology to Cultural life Kuhn‘s Paradigms and Jungian Studies Overall Conclusion: A Sensible Role for the Mind Supplement: A Personal View concerning how to approach Jungian Studies and psychological life Advert: New From Chiron Publications: Where the Shadows Lie: A Jungian Interpretation of Tolkien‘s The Lord of the Rings by Pia Skogemann 1 2 12 18 25 28 29 32 INTRODUCTION This small book should be read and understood as consisting of loosely connected papers. The first two essays titled Jung in Context and Schools of Analytical Psychology demonstrate a necessary familiarity with the field that is a prerequisite for being able to take a critical approach towards Jungian Studies in general. Of course Jungian Studies is not one within itself as the Schools of Analytical Psychology essay title makes obvious. Hence it is necessary to be familiar with Jung‘s own work, it‘s context and subsequent developments within the field that are often referred to as ‗Post‘ Jungian. The third paper titled Applying a Reformed Complex Psychology to Cultural Life is an attempt to apply one or two psychological concepts to well-known phenomena in outer life. This demonstrates the value and relevance of psychological thinking. Jung himself did that and it serves to shed light on the concepts that you use and to shed light on the subject matter you are referring too. Too often Jungian Studies appears to be merely talking to itself. Therefore this essay equates to a minor corrective. It isn‘t meant to apply a dogma to a social scientific approach as-such. But it is a strong argument for harder thinking especially about how we use our concepts. The fourth paper is titled Kuhn‟s Paradigms and Jungian Studies. In that paper Kuhn‘s theory is outlined and psychology‘s position within the fields of knowledge is clarified from within the context of Kuhn‘s theory. And it is concluded that Jungian Studies needs to focus on one area that it could specialize in. The subject of „Meaning‟ is suggested. This would sharpen Jungian Studies approach and clarify its position. As a field, it would stand greater chance of success in advancing knowledge - if it tried to solve just one puzzle. And those outside of Jungian Studies would understand what Jungian Studies was studying! This is not supposed to imply that Jungian Studies could never focus on any other subject matter ever again. Rather it is to discipline the field. Jungian Studies should focus on and resolve one issue at a time… no matter how long that takes. The overall conclusion to this small book equates to an acknowledgement of the obvious… that the mind thinks and feels in a multitude of ways… but also argues that it is by thinking that we make sense of life. Hence the overall conclusion is that a sensible role for the mind is to think. Even when we experience meaning the threat of over identifying necessitates a role for thinking in order to establish perspective and balance… imperative for the maintenance of psychological health. 1 JUNG IN CONTEXT The historical context of Jungian analytical psychology 1 Claire Douglas‘ chapter titled ‗The historical context of analytical psychology‘ (in ‗The Cambridge Companion to Jung‘2) and Sonu Shamdasani‘s Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology: The Dream of a Science3 are the two main sources used in this essay. These sources enable us to effectively sketch the historical context of Jung‘s psychology. Douglas rightly touches upon a multitude of influences on Jung. She starts off by saying that Jung himself referred to two aspects of his psyche, one that is empirical, rational, practical and so on, and another that is romantic and ―at home with the unconscious, the mysterious, and the hidden whether in hermetic science and religion, in the occult, or in fantasies and dreams.‖4 Already a key Jungian belief about the psyche is implied here. And that is that the human psyche has evolved (in the western world) to the point where it can think and rationalize (hence at its height it creates scientific and mathematical models, philosophies and the technology that we see around us) whilst the psyche is also fantasy prone, it dreams, is emotional and so forth. Despite Jung‘s belief that this description of the psyche is true, Douglas correctly writes that ―Analytical psychology still struggles to hold the tension of these opposites with different schools, or leanings, or even schisms, veering first to one side of the pole, then to the other.‖5 However, Jung‘s perspective is supported in this work because both rationalism and irrationalism are psychological realities. Before outlining the historical context of Jung‘s psychology it would suit our purpose to merely list some of the influences and then to expand. The following list is not exhaustive by any means, remember Jung was an erudite. Nevertheless, the following were amongst the major contextual influences. Romanticism was an influence, as was Positivism, Kant, Schopenhauer, Goethe, Schelling, Carus, Nietzsche, Shamanism, Janet, Freud, Flournoy, parapsychology, Swedenborg, James, Eastern spirituality, Gnosticism and Alchemy. We will discuss Romanticism and Positivism first. Romanticism and Positivism Jung always insisted that he was scientific.6 Douglas explains that ―Jung‘s university teachers held an almost religious belief in the possibilities of positivistic science and faith in the scientific method. Positivism […] focused on the power of reason, experimental science, and the study of general laws and hard facts. It gave a linear, forwardly progressing, and optimistic slant to history […] Positivism gave Jung invaluable training in and respect for empirical science. Jung‘s medical-psychiatric background is clearly revealed in his empirical research, his careful clinical observation and case histories, his skill in diagnosis, and his formulation of projective tests.‖7 Hence, Jung was influenced 2 by the enlightenment and scientific revolution like other great names of his day. However the rationalist scientist in Jung would often be organizing irrational data in an attempt to understand it. (e.g. fantasies, dreams, myths, and even the disorganized, dissociated ramblings of psychotics). This leads us nicely to Romanticism. The Romantics sought a unity with nature whose connection had been lost. The Romantics also focused on irrational phenomena and inner reality. Here of course, Jung and the Romantics sought meaning. For Jung, meaning was found in the inner world hence it would be most beneficial, he thought, to apply science towards this realm. Douglas writes that the Romantics had a ―fascination with studies of possession, multiple personalities, seers, mediums, and trancers, as well as with shamans, exorcists, magnetizers, and hypnotic healers [… and that…] they all employed altered states of consciousness that linked one psyche to another and made use of the various ways healer and healed enter this vast, omnipresent, yet still mysterious collective world.‖8 Douglas traces Romanticism ―from the pre-Socratic philosophers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, through Plato, to the Romanticism of the early nineteenth century and its revival at the end of that century.‖9 In Jung‘s autobiography, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, he writes that he was ―attracted to the thought of Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Empedocles, and Plato, despite their long-windedness of Socratic argumentation.‖10 It is well-known that by the end of the 19th century Romantic themes were expressed in much of the most famous literary works. Douglas points to the following as having been inspired by Romanticism: ―Hugo, Balzac, Dickens, Poe, Dostoevsky, Maupassant, Nietzsche, Wilde, R. L. Stevenson, George du Maurier, and Proust.‖11 Douglas continues: ―As a Swiss student, Jung spoke and read German, French, and English and so had access to these writers as well as to his own nation‘s popular literature.‖12 It is fair to point out that Jung, whilst on the one hand declaring his work, ‗scientific‘, on the other hand, declared his work as cultural: ―whatever happens in a given moment has inevitably the quality peculiar to that moment.‖13 This apparent contradiction is explained as Jung viewing his work as an evolving science. Even in physics the discipline doesn‘t stand still. And in psychology Jung often said that ideas require updating in order to express and be conducive with the specific time and place.14 The Romantic Philosophers who influenced the ideas of analytical psychology include ―Kant, Goethe, Schiller, Hegel and Nietzsche.‖15 Jung wrote that ―mentally my greatest adventure had been the study of Kant and Schopenhauer.‖16 For example, there is similarity between Jung‘s archetypes hypothesis and Kant‘s categories. Shamdasani writes that in 1918 Jung ―defined the primordial images as a priori conditions for fantasy-production, and likened the primordial image to Kantian categories. […] In Psychological Types, he refined his understanding of the relation between ideas, images and archetypes. In his use, idea had a close connection with image. Images could be personal or impersonal. These impersonal images, distinguished by their mythological quality, were the primordial images. When these lacked this mythological character and perceptible images, he referred to them as ideas. The idea was the meaning of the primordial image. Thus ideas were originally derived from primordial images.‖17 Jung concurred with Kant, who for Jung, ―had shown that the mind was not tabulsa rasa.‖18 as ―certain categories of thinking are given a priori.19 Meanwhile Marilyn Nagy points out 3 that for both Jung and Kant ―there is something inside the individual which knows what to do and how to act. Knowledge which is of crucial importance for the human individual is won at the moment when we acknowledge a priori inner experience, experience which is not dictated by the perceptual and sensual power of the outer object. For Kant this was the experience of the categorical imperative. For Jung it was the experience of the Self.‖20 Arthur Schopenhauer was another favorite of Jung‘s. Jung praised ―the centrality accorded to suffering by Schopenhauer and Von Hartmann, whom he described as the formers intellectual heir. [Moreover Jung said] To Schopenhauer I owe the dynamic view of the psyche; the ‗will‘ is the libido that is back of everything.‖21 Shamdasani then writes that this passage (and others by Jung) ―suggest[s] that [Jung‘s] initial concept of psychic energy was derived from Schopenhauer‘s concept of the will.‖22 The blindness of the Schopenhaurian will is clear in the following quote by the philosopher quoted in Shamdasani: ―the works of animal instinct, the spiders web, the honeycomb of bees, the structure of termites, and so on, are all of them constituted as if they had originated in consequence of an intentional conception, far-reaching and rational deliberation, whereas they are obviously the work of a blind impulse, that is, of a will which is not guided by knowledge.‖23 However, Shamdasani says that Jung ―followed Hartmann […] adopting von Hartmann‘s reformulations of Schopenhauer‘s philosophy [such as that] found in his lecture ―Thoughts on the nature and value of speculative inquiry‖ [where Jung endorses Hartmann‘s view and adds] the absolutely essential element of purposeful intention‖24 to the will/psychic energy. It should be noted that whilst Jung approved of Schopenhauer‘s attention given to suffering in life, Jung (of course) regarded suffering as only one important area of life and also gave a great deal of attention to the meaning of life. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was admired greatly by Jung. Jung often referred to Goethe‘s masterpiece ‗Faust‘ whereby Faust struggles with inner conflict.25 Further inspirations were F. W. von Schelling and Carl Gustav Carus. The latter should strike the reader as having remarkably similar ideas to Jung. ―Carus depicted the creative, autonomous, and healing function present in the unconscious. He saw the life of the psyche as a dynamic process in which consciousness and the unconscious are mutually compensatory and where dreams play a restorative role in psychic equilibrium. Carus also outlined a tripartite model of the unconscious – the general absolute, the partial absolute, and the relative – that prefigured Jung‘s concepts of archetypal, collective, and personal unconscious.‖26 Why then is Carus not given more credit in analytical psychology? One Jungian thinker says that it is simply because Carus didn‘t offer treatment.27 Nevertheless Jung himself valued Carus‘ work. Shamdasani writes ―Jung stated that his own conceptions were ―much more like Carus than Freud…‖28 On the other hand Jung writes (in Memories, Dreams, Reflections) that Carus (and Hartmann) both failed to empirically ground their theories of the unconscious. Hence they remained philosophically speculative. Jung writes that it was Freud who first ―demonstrated empirically the presence of an unconscious psyche.‖29 Shamdasani writes that Jung regarded the unconscious as an idea ―introduced into philosophy by Lebinz, and that Kant and Schelling had expressed views on it. It had subsequently been elaborated into a system by Carus, and then by von Hartmann, who had been significantly influenced by 4 Carus 30 In 1940 he [i.e. Jung] wrote that though philosophers such as Lebinz, Kant, and Schelling had drawn attention to the ―problem of the dark soul‖, it was Carus, a physician who had been impelled ―to point to the unconscious as the essential ground of the soul.‖31 In 1945, he went so far as to say of Carus that if he had been living today, he would have been a psychotherapist. Indeed, the psychology of the unconscious began with Carus, who did not realize that he had built the ―philosophical bridge to a future empirical psychology.‖32 However, Carus and Hartmann‘s philosophical conceptions of the unconscious ―had gone down under the overwhelming wave of materialism and empiricism.‖ It was only after this that the concept of the unconscious reappeared ―in the scientifically orientated medical psychology.‖33 Jung lectured on Nietzsche34 observing various affinities with his own psychology especially the going beyond black and white good and evil. Douglas also rightly points especially to ―the way negativity and resentment shadowed behavior.‖35 Shamdasani notes that ―For Jung, Nietzsche had correctly recognized the general significance of the drives.‖36 Shamdasani continues, ―In 1917 in The Psychology of the Unconscious Processes, posing the question of whether anyone knew what it meant to affirm the drives, Jung noted that this was what Nietzsche desired and taught. This made the ‗case‘ of Nietzsche especially critical, as ―he who thus taught saying yes to the life drive, must have his own life looked at critically in order to discover the effects of this teaching upon him who gave the teaching.‖37 Hence Jung was especially interested in studying Nietzsche. Shamdasani highlights the importance of William James and Theodore Flournoy on Jung whilst qualifying this by admitting that he is nominating them as ―but two of a plethora of other figures.‖38 Shamdasani says that Jung described them ―as the only two outstanding minds with whom he was able to conduct uncomplicated conversations.‖39 Shamdasani continues ―For Jung, as for Flournoy and James before him, a necessary condition for the possibility of a psychology was that it should consider all human phenomena.‖40 The main source that Jungian researchers can attain for evidence of the influence of Flournoy and James on Jung‘s thinking is from an ―unpublished draft (now in the Jung Archives at the Countway Library in Boston). [There] Jung writes […] extensively of his debt to Flournoy and William James.‖41 Jung‘s interest in the paranormal (or parapsychological) is well-documented. A good example of this is his reading of Emmanuel Swedenborg. Jung discusses some of Swedenborg‘s visions in his Collected Works. And in Memories, Dreams, Reflections Jung writes that (in his student years) he ―read seven volumes of Swedenborg.‖42 Douglas says on this area, ―Jung‘s interest in and knowledge about parapsychology adds a rich though suspect edge to analytical psychology which demands attention congruent with the extended scope of scientific knowledge today.‖43 A major influence on the more clinically-minded Jung is that of the French dissociationist psychiatrist, Pierre Janet. Jung studied under Janet and the latter pioneered theories of dissociation and fixed ideas, which Jung termed ‗complexes‘. Jung agreed with a great deal of what Janet pioneered but Jung also embraced the artistic and creative side of life. Hence Jung went beyond Janet who was ―clearly no Romantic.‖44 The work of John R 5 Haule is scholarly and studies the link between analytical psychology and Janet‘s dissociationist psychology. Haule had his key essay on Jung‘s dissociationsism published in Jung in Contexts.45 In the foreword to that book Anthony Storr also emphasizes above all else, the significance of dissociation and complexes on Jung. Storr reminds us of Jung‘s early career in the Burgholzli Mental Hospital in Zurich. Storr writes… ―Jung‘s interest in dissociation and splitting was reinforced by his daily encounters with chronic schizophrenics whose personalities, he concluded, were fragmented; that is disintegrated into many parts rather than merely dissociated into two or three recognizable subsidiary personalities.‖46 Storr also reminds us of Jung‘s first published paper; On the Psychology and Pathology of So-Called Occult Phenomena47 That paper was based on Jung‘s cousin, Helene Preiswerk. Helene claimed that dead spirits spoke through her but Jung interpreted the voices as alternate personalities, different personalities of Helene ―which had become dissociated from her normal ego.‖48 Storr also emphasizes Jung‘s Word association Tests49 that enabled Jung to refer to his Complex Psychology. In the first ever edition of the International Journal of Jungian Studies, Paula A. Monahan sought to place emphasis on the influence of Janet‘s dissociationist psychology on Jung‘s work.50 Janet is more relevant than Freud as an influence on Jung, as Jung valued the principle of dissociation as sovereign over repression although he recognized both of those principles. Nevertheless, Jung recognized Freud as a pioneer of the unconscious.51 Interested thinkers often point out that Jung himself was a childhood neurotic. This may be seen as a slight digression because this establishes a personal context for analytical psychology as opposed to the multitude of impersonal historical contextual influences. However, it is the other key factor in establishing a sketch of the context of Jung‘s work. Jung had a father complex. Carl Jung‘s father is portrayed as an authoritarian and dogmatic Christian who had repressed doubts about his faith. And Jung is regarded as having been a childhood neurotic in both Jungian and psychoanalytical literature. For example in the latter, Winnicott reads Memories, Dreams, Reflections as evidence of Jung as a childhood schizophrenic, a divided-self in search of a self-identity.52 In the Jungian literature, Michael Fordham, who helped compile Jung‘s Collected Works, also regards Jung as having been a childhood schizophrenic. Following reading the first draft of the childhood chapters of Memories, Dreams, Reflections Jung asked Fordham for his views. Fordham replied that he regarded Jung as having been ―a schizophrenic child‖ with strong obsessional defenses, and that had he been brought to me I should have said the prognosis was good, but that I should have recommended analysis – He did not consent my blunt statement.‖53 Anthony Stevens meanwhile, arguably takes up the conventional position on Jung as a childhood neurotic who creatively compensated for his lack of emotional connection to the outer social world. Stevens writes that Jung ―resembled other intellectual pioneers [… such as …] Issac Newton and Rene Descartes.‖54 Like them ―he did not feel at home in the [outer] world‖ and hence compensated by becoming pioneering and ―intellectually objective about it.‖55 Stevens continues by arguing that Jung‘s ideas ―of the collective unconscious, his theory of archetypes, his psychological typology and his description of the structure and function of the psyche were at once consequences of his emotional isolation and brilliant attempts to compensate for it. It was no accident that the principle of compensation 6 between inner and outer realms of experience became the cornerstone of analytical psychology.‖56 The same desire to compensate for childhood neurosis is, as Stevens says, evident in Issac Newton‘s work, see footnote.57 Jung inevitably cast an eye on Eastern spirituality. Whilst cautious of the westerner grasping at Eastern texts, symbols and so forth, he nevertheless understood that the East tended to seek a way beyond conflicts, striving for ―balance and harmony‖58 through paths of ―self-discipline and self-realization [and] through the withdrawal of projections and through yoga, meditation, and introspection, paths that were similar to a deep analytic process.‖59 Finally, the influence of Gnosticism and especially Alchemy on Jungian psychology is (at least in the latter) obvious, as Jung writes on alchemy in three volumes of his collected works. And in Memories, Dreams, Reflections Jung makes the connection between alchemy and his psychology, clear himself. He writes ―I had very soon seen that analytical psychology coincided in a most curious way with alchemy. The experiences of the alchemists were, in a sense, my experiences, and their world was my world. This was, of course, a momentous discovery: I had stumbled upon the historical counterpart of my psychology of the unconscious. The possibility of a comparison with alchemy, and the uninterrupted intellectual chain back to Gnosticism, gave substance to my psychology. When I pored over these old texts everything fell into place: the fantasy-images, the empirical material I had gathered in my practice, and the conclusions I had drawn from it. I now began to understand what these psychic contents meant when seen in historical perspective.‖60 Notes 1: This essay is a moderately revised version of a paper that I wrote in 2008 Lavin, T, 2005, points out that Jung originally referred to his work as Complex Psychology and that a very close colleague of Jung‘s, Professor C. A. Meier continued to do so even after Jung‘s other close colleagues began to refer to his work as Analytical Psychology. 2: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y & Dawson, T, 1997, p17-35 3: Shamdasani, S, 2003 4: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y & Dawson, T, 1997, p17 5: ibid 6: In his book, ―Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology: The Dream of a Science‖ Jung historian, Sonu Shamdasani, discusses a debate between Jung and E. A. Bennet. The debate is about the scientific credentials of Jung‘s psychology. Jung claims that his psychology is scientific because of its applicability. Jung could not see any more applicable theories anywhere else. What Jung meant by applicability was ―its application as a principle of 7 understanding and a heuristic means to an end as it is characteristic of each scientific theory.‖ (Jung C, in Shamdasani, S, 2003, p98) Jung‘s view was that a theory had to offer a satisfactory explanation that makes sense of life. That, for Jung, is the true quality of a theory. And it had to have a heuristic value in order to be whole. If it failed to be heuristic it would be one-sided. And for Jung, no matter how true a one-sided viewpoint is, it remains incomplete. Furthermore in the same debate with Bennet, Jung argued that it isn‘t good enough to argue that psychic facts should be analogous to chemical or physical proof. How one proves something has to take into account the discipline that they are dealing with. Hence Jung argued ―the question ought to be formulated: what is physical, biological, psychological, legal and philosophical evidence?‖ (Jung, C, in Shamdasani, S, 2003, p99). So Jung argued that there was an Anglo-Saxon bias on what was deemed to be scientific, again referring to physics and chemistry. Moreover, ―psyche is the mother of all our attempts to understand Nature, but in contradistinction to all others it tries to understand itself by itself, a great disadvantage in one way and an equally great prerogative in the other!‖ (ibid) 7: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y, & Dawson, T, 1997, p19 8: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y & Dawson, T, 1997, p27 9: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y & Dawson, T, 1997, p19 10: Jung, C, 1995, p87 11: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y & Dawson, T, 1997, p21 12: ibid 13: ibid 14: Jung said this about all ideas, fearing that otherwise they would become dogmatic. For example, he said it about Christianity; see Jung, C, 1977, p736, par. 1665 & 1666 15: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y & Dawson, T, 1997, p22 16: Jung, C, 1977, p213, par. 485 17: Shamdasani, S, 2003, p235 18: Shamdasani, S, 2003, p236 19: Jung, C, in Shamdasani, S, 2003, p236 20: Nagy, M, 1991, p37 8 21: Jung, C, in Shamdasani, S, 2003, p198 22: ibid 23: Shamdasani, S, 2003, p199 24: ibid 25: Jung, C, 1995, p107, 123, 232 26: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y, & Dawson, T, 1997, p23 27: Hauke, C, in Papadopoulos, R, 2006, p71 28: Shamdasani, S, 2003, p164 & 165 29: Jung, C, 1995, p193 30: Shamdasani, S, 2003, p165 31: Jung, C, in Shamdasani, S, 2003, p165 32: Jung, C, in Shamdasani, S, 2003, p165 & 166 33: Shamdasani, S, 2003, p166 34: Jung, C, & Jarret, J. L, 1988 35: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y, & Dawson, T, 1997, p 25 36: Shamdasani, S, 2003, p251 37: Jung, C, in Shamdasani, S, 2003, p251 38: Shamdasani, S, 1999, p540 39: ibid 40: ibid 41: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y, & Dawson, T, 1997, p27 & 28 42: Jung, C, 1995, p120 43: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y, & Dawson, T, 1997, p28 44: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y, & Dawson, T, 1997, p26 9 45: Haule, J. R, in Bishop, P, 1999, p242–264. Haule‘s essay is titled From Somnambulism to the Archetypes: The French Roots of Jung‟s Split with Freud. 46: Storr, A, in Bishop, P, 1999, pxi 47: ibid 48 ibid 49: Storr, A, in Bishop, P, 1999, pxiii 50: Monahan, P. A, 2009, p33 – 49 51: Jung, C, 1995, p192 & 193 52: Winnicott, D, in Papadopoulos, R, 1992, p320 53: Fordham, M, in Smith, R. C, 1996, p22 54: Stevens, A, 1999, p111 55: Stevens, A, 1999, p112 56: ibid 57: The following is extracted from Farndon, J, et al (2005) The Great Scientists (Arcturus Publishing Ltd) and is quoted here because it demonstrates through an example, the classical Jungian principle of compensation: Issac Newton‘s ―father was already dead by the time Newton was born. When he was just 18 months old, his poor widowed mother married a wealthy old local minister […] but left the infant Issac with his grandparents. It may be that Issac never recovered from his early abandonment. Even though his mother returned home to her son when her new husband died seven years later, Issac later confessed that he remembered ‗threatening my (step) father and mother to burn them and their house over them.‘ Throughout his life, Newton carried a terrible suppressed anger and sense of resentment that made him a very difficult man to deal with. The introverted Issac went to school at the age of 12 but showed no signs of any intellectual prowess until he was bullied one day at school. In a towering rage the young Newton fought back until his larger opponent was a quivering wreck. But Newton did not stop there. He was determined to humiliate his opponent in the classroom too. Soon Newton became deeply involved in his academic pursuits, especially science, and amazed the locals with such things as handmade water clocks and flying lanterns.‖ (Farndon, J, et al, 2005, p59 & 60). Newton went on to make his great ―discoveries‖ of ―the law of gravity and the laws of motion.‖ (Farndon, J, et al, 2005, p61) 58: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y & Dawson, T, 1997, p29 10 59: ibid 60: Jung, C, 1995, p231 Bibliography Bishop, P, (1999) Jung in Contexts: A Reader (Routledge) Eisendrath, P. Y, and Dawson, T, (1997) The Cambridge Companion to Jung (Cambridge University Press) Farndon, J, et al, (2005) The Great Scientists (Arcturus Publishing Ltd) Fordham, M, (1994) Analytical Psychology: A Modern Science (Karnac Books) Jung, C, (1977) CW: Vol 18: The Symbolic Life: Miscellaneous Writings (Routledge) Jung, C, (1995) Memories, Dreams, Reflections (Recorded and Edited by Aniela Jaffe) (Fontana Press) Jung, C & Jarret, J. L, (1988) Nietzsche‘s Zarathustra: Notes of the Seminar given in 1934 – 1939 (Princeton University Press) Lavin, T, (2005) Professor C. A. Meier: Scientist and Healer of Souls – Part 2 (Website) Monahan, P. A, International Journal of Jungian Studies: Vol 1. No 1, March 2009, 33 – 49, C. G. Jung: Freud‘s heir or Janet‘s? The influence upon Jung of Janet‘s dissociationism (Routledge) Nagy, M, (1991) Philosophical Issues in the Psychology of C. G. Jung ( State University of New York Press) Papadopoulos, R, (1992) Carl Gustav Jung: Critical Assessments (Routledge) Papadopoulos, R, (2006) The Handbook of Jungian Psychology: Theory, Practice and Applications (Psychology Press) Shamdasani, S, (2003) Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology: The Dream of a Science ( Cambridge University Press) Smith, R. C, (1996) The Wounded Jung: Effects of Jung‘s Relationships on his Life and Work (Northwestern University Press) Stevens, A, (1999) On Jung (Penguin Books) 11 Schools of Jungian Analytical Psychology Introduction In this essay we discuss the Schools of Jungian Analytical Psychology. In doing so - we will inevitably focus on Andrew Samuel‘s model of the classical, developmental and archetypal schools. In part 2 we will briefly discuss an example of a split within the world of Jungian psychology. This example will be concerning the most famous recent split that occurred in Zurich and was orchestrated by Carl Jung‘s main collaborator, the late Marie Louise Von Franz. Before Andrew Samuels came onto the scene and created his classical, developmental, and archetypal schools of Jungian psychology… the differences between Jungians were regarded as splits between London and Zurich. This (pre- Samuels) model - was in effect, Michael Fordham‘s way of defining those within the Jungian world.. It was a relatively effective model. But Samuels changed (or updated the model) because (for example) someone training to become a Jungian analyst in London could be closer to the purist position of Jung than Fordham‘s psychoanalytical leanings. We should be clear here concerning what the general positions of Jungian training were (and are) in London and Zurich. And then we will move on to discuss Samuels updated version of 1985 which (for me) still holds true today. Then, as said in part 2 we will discuss the most famous recent split in the world of Jungian psychology. The splits between London and Zurich training schools consisted of a more psychoanalytical leaning in the former and more symbolic approach in the latter. In effect London was moving away from Jung and Zurich staying close to Jung. Kenneth Eisold, writing in his essay titled Institutional Conflicts in Jungian analysis, says that the London school, under Fordham‘s leadership focused on ―transference, regression, and infantile material.‖1 Eisold therefore says that for those wanting pure Jungian training, Zurich was the place to go.2 To make the division clear, it is helpful to contrast Michael Fordham and Marie Louise Von Franz. This is because the former distances himself from cherished Jungian sacred cows such as alchemy and myth whilst the latter sees them as everything that is of value to psychological life. Fordham‘s psychoanalytical leanings are emphasized by him because he believes that many people in analysis are un-adapted to contemporary life and therefore too great a focus on the likes of myth and alchemy can easily further distance the patient from modern life. Obviously it is not unusual at all for a patient in analysis to require the exact opposite which would be adaption to contemporary life. Hence Fordham writes ―The Achilles heel of the historical amplificatory method is this: the patient can never have been present in the historical context. A patient who produces archetypal material with striking alchemical parallels is not practicing in the alchemical laboratory, nor is he living in the religious and social setting to which alchemy was relevant. Therefore, it can become unrealistic… if this is thought of as alchemical… the patient becomes more divorced than before from his setting in contemporary life.‖3 But Carl Jung‘s closest collaborator, Marie Louise Von Franz takes the exact opposite view to Michael Fordham. Von Franz is pure Jung… or Classical Jungian in the later (1985) updating of Jungian 12 terminology. Von Franz said that not only is alchemy a complete myth but that ―civilization needs a myth to live by […and that…] if our Western civilization has a possibility of survival, it would be by accepting the alchemical myth, which is a richer completion and continuation of the Christian myth.‖4 Von Franz, as a true classical Jungian greatly appreciates the symbolic importance of alchemy.5 Whilst there was clearly some logic to the original London-Zurich way of interpreting someone working in – or with an interest in – Jungian psychology… it was also clearly problematic because it was often inaccurate. For example it needed modernizing because James Hillman‘s archetypal psychology came onto the scene and was not represented by the old model. Also, what if you trained in London but were more classical Jungian in orientation. Andrew Samuels, the man who crafted a more specific description of the schools of analytical psychology said that he saw the problem with the original Fordham model as follows… ―People used to talk about ‗London‘ and ‗Zurich‘. But even in the 1980s and certainly in the 1990s there are what we used to call ‗London‘ analysts in Chicago and in San Francisco, and there are ‗Zurich‘ analysts all over the world who have never been anywhere near Zurich.‖6 This leads us nicely into discussion of Samuel‘s model concerning the schools of Jungian psychology. Part 1 In part 1 of this essay we discuss the schools of Jungian Analytical psychology. In 1985 Andrew Samuels distinguished between three schools of Jungian thought… the Classical School, the Developmental School and the Archetypal School. Writing more recently he says: ―To summarize, I said that there were three schools: (1) the classical school, consciously working in Jung‘s tradition, with a focus on the self and individuation. I made the point that one should not equate classical with stuck or rigid. There are evolutions within something classical that are quite possible. (2) The developmental school, which has a specific take on the importance of infancy in the evolution of adult personality and character, and an equally stringent emphasis on the analysis of transference-countertransference dynamics in clinical work. The developmental school has a very close relationship with psychoanalysis, although the word rapprochement that is often used is quite wrong, because psychoanalysis does not rapproche with analytical psychology, whereas analytical psychology makes frequent attempts at rapprochement with psychoanalysis. (3) The archetypal school plays with and explores images in therapy. Its notion of soul suggests the deepening that permits an event to become an experience.‖1 Samuels says that he has since updated this system and that the archetypal school has now been integrated into the other two schools. He also says that two new schools have emerged in analytical psychology… a fundamentalist school and a psychoanalytic school. Hence for Samuels the four schools are now ―fundamentalist, classical, developmental, psychoanalytic.‖2 However, his original three school system was better. David Tacey has argued this case with Samuels on the International Association for Jungian Studies (IAJS) website discussion forum. Tacey says that he doesn‘t like the four schools model especially as it leaves out the archetypal.3 It seems as if Samuels is looking at conditions in the UK as Tacey writes that in Australia 13 ―the archetypal school is the strongest of all.‖4 Much else that Tacey says is agreed with here. He further points out that even in the UK Mark Saban and Noel Cobb speak for the Archetypal school.5 And Tacey takes issue with regards to Samuels addition of a psychoanalytical school on the grounds that the Developmental School of analytical psychology already represents the psychoanalytical influence on Jungian thinking.6 To be clear then, the author of this work agrees with Samuels original three school model, and I agree with Tacey‘s views concerning Samuels changes. Also, Tacey takes issue with regards to Samuels addition of a fundamentalist school saying that he believes that there are fundamentalist wings in all of the schools.7 However, the term fundamentalist has very strong connotations and associations, for example it smacks of fanaticism… and therefore the author of this work is reluctant to label any Jungian that I have come across with the label, fundamentalist. Moreover dogmatists exist everywhere but no-one is going to describe themselves as belonging to the fundamentalist school of analytical psychology. Wolfgang Giegerich is so revolutionary in his psychology that although he has been immersed in Jungian analytical psychology, he has worked his way right out of it. His emphasis on thinking and logic means that he is scarcely Jungian at all. Whilst Giegerich maintains the link with Jungian psychology I would categorize him as radically PostJungian but would not include him in any of the existing schools. This is not to underestimate him. David Tacey informed IAJS members that Giegerich ―is a heavyweight, and it is often not noticed by Jungians in English speaking worlds. I have noticed a substantial following of him in Japan and South America […and…] also in Korea, where scholars and writers are very interested in his work.‖8 Finally, John Dourley has referred to ―Pre-Jungians‖9 as has Edward Edinger.10 This is clearly a swipe at the description of ‗Post-Jungian.‘ Dourley‘s reference to ‗pre-Jungians‘ is difficult to sign up to. It would mean that we are all pre-Jungian. Hence the label ‗preJungian‘ is rejected here. Part 2 This part of the essay discusses splits in Jungian analytical psychology. One of the most famous Jungian splits in recent years involved the split-off from the Zurich Institute. The Jung institute was formed in 1947 and the late Marie Louise Von Franz was the most popular teacher from the 1950s until the split in 1994.1 The split was orchestrated by Von Franz herself. Von Franz felt that the Zurich Institute was not honoring Jung‘s ideas. She believed that it was diluting them. Von Franz wanted to honor Jung‘s legacy, hence, she set up a new center called the Jung-Von Franz Centre or ‗Centrum‘ in German. This clearly ideological split occurred in May 1994 and the Centrum has thrived since then. It is, however, ironic because the Zurich school is renowned for being Classical Jungian whilst the London school is renowned for being more developmentalist and psychoanalytical. However, Daniel Anderson who is currently a student at the Centrum writes that ―some of the "London influence" was being felt in Zürich, too. For example, Mario Jacoby began to incorporate developmental strands, writing books on Narcissism and Individuation, and infant research‖.2 Thomas 14 Kirsch also has knowledge about what led to Von Franz causing the split. He says that Von Franz ―wanted to keep the Institute pure. Some other senior analysts wanted to introduce things like group therapy and the teaching of group therapy, which upset "the purists" very much. They threatened to quit, which eventually they did. Then [as Daniel Anderson says] people like Mario Jacoby and Toni Frei went to London and brought back some of Fordham's ideas to the old Jung Institute. So the developmental strand also came in at the Jung Institute‖. Freud had been a topic from the very beginning at the Institute, but it was only theoretical and no Freudian actually taught at the Institute.‖3 Von Franz and others were uncomfortable about these developments and hence, given the authority and influence that Von Franz had in the Jungian world, she had the ability to set up a new center. If Classical Jungian Psychology has been watered down in Zurich, it still nevertheless leans towards the ‗classical‘ whilst London, thanks to the late Michael Fordham, is clearly psychoanalytically orientated due to its developmental approach. Marie Louise Von Franz, being Jung‘s main collaborator, ensured that the Centrum was purely classical Jungian. Daniel Anderson quotes the mission statement of the Centrum which is "The Centre was founded in order to create a place where the autonomous psyche can be considered with total commitment."4 Clearly then Von Franz believed that Zurich was not a place where the autonomous psyche was considered with total commitment. David Tacey speculates that the split was caused by minor differences. He offers this view due to the fact that the Zurich Institute is regarded as Classical Jungian. Tacey says ―Is this perhaps what Freud called "the narcissism of minor differences"? Or one group failing to live up to its own ego-ideal, thus creating anxiety and splitting?‖5 Tacey, whose thoughts on the schools of analytical psychology we discussed in part 1, also points out that in his country, Australia, the splits are the same as they are in London and Zurich. But he adds that there is more interest in Hillman, albeit not among the professionals.6 Presumably because the professional analysts regard Hillman as an artist. Conclusion In conclusion we can see that there are clearly differences within Jungian Analytical Psychology. Some of the differences are very wide. There is a great gulf between the Developmentalists (working in Michael Fordham‘s tradition) and the Archetypalists. (working in James Hillman‘s tradition). Looking at the differences between the Classical, Developmental and Archetypal schools is more exact than looking at differences between the likes of London and Zurich. Of course, the London and Zurich model had no place for Hillman‘s archetypal psychology which is another reason why the modernization was necessary. Hence, Andrew Samuels was right to create his (original) improved descriptive model which has stood the test of time. There are general differences between London and Zurich but obviously you will find Classical Jungians in London and Developmentalists in Zurich who don‘t fit the stereotype of Fordham‘s (pre 1985 Samuel‘s) model. Finally, and importantly, I (along with Robert Segal) criticize the schools of Jungian 15 Analytical Psychology for being pre-paradigmatic. However, maybe many Jungians don‘t care. They fail to apply innovative theories to things in life that are external to the psyche. I ask Where‟s the research? Where are the studies that illuminate subject matters and advance knowledge? Until the schools and Jungian Studies attempt to answer questions like those, they will merely be talking to themselves. Hence this essay has reflected Jungianism… as it sees itself in its own little bubbleworld. It needs to apply itself to the real outer-world if it is to win respect for itself for example with the academy. Introduction Notes 1: Eisold, K, 2001, p340 2: ibid 3: Fordham, M, in Samuels, A, 1986, p29 4: Von Franz, M. L, in Papadopoulos, R. K, 2006, p274 5: Sharp, D 6: Samuels, A, in Casement, A, 1998, p18 Part 1 Notes 1: Samuels, A, in Casement, A, 1998, p19 & 20 2: Samuels, A, in Casement, A, 1998, p21 3: Tacey, D, 19th August 2008 4: ibid 5: ibid 6: ibid 7: ibid 8: Tacey, D, 19th August 2008 9: Dourley, J, 1st December 2008 10: Edinger, E, in Jaffe, L Part 2 Notes 1: Kirsch, T, 24th September 2008 2: Anderson, D, 23rd September 2008 3: Kirsch, T, 24th September 2008 4: Anderson, D, 23rd September 2008 5: Tacey, D, 23rd September 2008 6: ibid 16 Bibliography Anderson, D, (23rd September 2008) IAJS Discussion Forum: Topic: Splits in Zurich and London Casement, A, (1998) Post-Jungians Today: Key Papers in Contemporary Analytical Psychology (Routledge) Dourley, J, (1st December 2008) IAJS Discussion Forum: Topic: Pre-Jungians Eisold, K, (2001) 46: 335-353: Journal of Analytical Psychology: Institutional Conflicts in Jungian Analysis (Blackwell) Jaffe, L, Interview with Edward F Edinger: Lawrence Jaffe, Interviewer: http://www.junginstitute.org/pdf_files/JungV1Fa9951-60.pdf Kirsch, T, (24th September 2008) IAJS Discussion Forum: Topic: Splits in Zurich and London Papadopoulos, R. K, (2006) Jung and the Post-Jungians: Theory, Practice and Applications (Psychology Press) Samuels, A, (1986) Jung and the Post-Jungians (Routledge) Sharp, D, In Memoriam: Marie Louise Von Franz, 1915 – 1998: A Personal Reminiscence by Daryl Sharp Tacey, D, (19th August 19th 2008) IAJS Discussion Forum: Topic: Schools of Analytical Psychology Tacey, D, (23rd September 2008) IAJS Discussion Forum: Topic: Splits in Zurich and London 17 Applying a Reformed Complex Psychology to Cultural life Abstract Robert Segal‘s methodology is taken up as a way to improve the thinking of Post-Jungian Studies and (by implication) to create a Post-Complex Psychology which is defined as… Personalistic Complex Psychology with emphasis on ‗Identification‘ and used as a tool in order to illuminate life/cultural phenomena external to itself that we otherwise would not know. (This is as opposed to Complex Psychology being simply about itself, as in that case it just talks to itself and is self-validating.) Introduction In part one of this essay we are concerned with outlining a theory concerning the importance of applying psychological studies to specific topics --- in order to illuminate something about them. This approach is influenced by the work of Robert Segal and we credit him for his methodology. Part 1 is therefore about outlining the approach. Part two is about applying the approach. We demonstrate how psychology can be applied to illuminate things. We articulate a theory of Absolute and Relative Identification applied to specific topics: Michael Jackson, football team, cult leader, girlfriend. In the conclusion to the essay we outline a further benefit of the overall approach outlined in this paper concerning the reform of Complex Psychology/Post-Jungian Studies. Part 1 The methodology being used in this essay is the approach taken by Robert A. Segal. Segal writes ―Simply applying Jungian labels to [things…] is not illuminating1. […] What is also required is showing what the labels that serve as shorthand for the psychology tell us about the topic at hand that we would not otherwise know.‖2 Segal has used this approach in his work on myth and Gnosticism where he has enlisted Jung not to put Jungian psychology on a pedestal but rather to illuminate something about the topics that he is studying (myth, Gnosticism). Segal rightly understands that if Jungian psychology is studied in isolation then it is just talking to itself. It short-hands psychological states of mind3 but does little more than that if it doesn‘t apply itself to something outside of itself. Segal also notes that those within Jungian Studies also often fail to provide any kind of evidence concerning what they say. Segal writes that Jungians often fail to do their homework on the topic that they are looking into. Segal points out that Jung himself actually did his homework on Gnosticism and Segal then adds ―What psychology of any stripe should do is to prove, not presuppose, its insights.‖4 Segal dialogues with Jungians on the International Association for Jungian Studies 18 (IAJS) discussion forum and is frequently critical of the lack of hard/clear thinking by the contributors. For example he criticizes the archetypes theory which is virtually always taken as proven. He writes that archetypes ―are sometimes […] used to SUM UP personality traits but other, bolder times are used to EXPLAIN personality traits […] as explanations, archetypes smack of what is called faculty psychology--the division of the mind into distinct, autonomous areas.‖5 The general public are not interested in archetypes as personality traits because they fail to illuminate anything new. They even fail to shorthand there. Shadow just becomes another name for evil. Segal rightly supports short-handing. For example if I refer to moderate dissociation this short-hands the laymans longwinded description of himself as suffering because someone said or did something that means that I am now having a bad day whereas I was feeling ok beforehand. I cannot now concentrate on what I was doing and I‟m not in the mood to do anything today. Segal says that such short-handing is ―legitimate‖ and that ―Non Jungians surely accept that every field has its own lingo.‖6 But Segal insists that this is not enough. Psychology must be more than a glossary and must be applied to other subject matters in order to increase knowledge and provide illuminating insights. PART 2 We will now apply Robert Segal‘s methodology to certain areas of life. However, despite Segal‘s engagement with the Jungian world his fields are philosophy and social science. Hence, the theories expounded in this part of the essay derive from not only thinking hard about Segal‘s approach but also thinking hard about improving on the usual discussion that Jungian types engage in when writing. The result, we will show, is a Complex Psychology that is subjected to probability. (i.e. Complexes and dissociation are subjected to probability). As we shall see, emphasis is placed on Absolute Identification and inextricably linking complexes and dissociation to it. Previously complexes and dissociation were not subjected to probability. Yet those who live a life of Absolute Identification possess high probability of triggering complexes and experiencing dissociation. The first thing that we need to do is simply choose a topic. Let‘s say that the topic is Michael Jackson and his fans. Now imagine a picture of the crowd at a Jackson concert. We typically lumber them all in-together as one… as passionate, fanatical, frenzied, emotional, and so forth. At this point we have illuminated absolutely nothing. Anyone can say this. Saying that they are in the grip of an archetype also illuminates absolutely nothing. What then can psychology tell us about the topic at hand that we would not otherwise know? Here I expound a theory of Identification. (i.e. Absolute Identification and Relative Identification). The theory can be applied in many areas of life. In this essay we apply it to Michael Jackson, football team, Cults, Girlfriend. Jackson fans aren‘t all alike. They can be split with some belonging to a category of Absolute Identification and some belonging to a category of Relative Identifciation. Absolute Identification is 24/7. Their interest is monopolized by Michael Jackson. Relative Identification is more common than absolute identification. When at a Michael 19 Jackson concert, someone characterized by Relative Identification towards the singer has the same psychological experience as someone characterized by Absolute Identification towards him. But the person who is characterized by Relative Identification ceases identification when not at the concert. The person characterized by Absolute Identification does not cease their identification… it is absolute. With regards to the fan characterized by Relative Identification, other aspects of cultural life compete for their interest. Absolute Identification is associated with psychological monopoly. Relative Identification is associated with psychological competition. Projection is different again. It requires doubt and insecurity… abit of angst. This is clearly different to Identification because in identification there is no doubt. What is the value of this knowledge? There‘s always the ―So what factor‖? of saying things like this. So I will try and tackle that here. Remember the picture of a frenzied Michael Jackson crowd during concert. We said that you can‘t visually tell the difference from one fan to the next. Those in both Absolute and Relative Identification all look the same. They are all either screaming, fainting, or crying etc. Psychology can say something that we would otherwise not know. It can take a random selection of those fans and study their thoughts, feelings and behavior in a different context. Those in Absolute Identification would always be thinking, feeling and doing things related to Jackson. Those in Relative Identification would not. One thing of value in this knowledge is about RISK. We can say that those in Absolute Identification are at greater risk of neurosis, dissociation and so forth (i.e. at greater risk of negative psychological states of mind if something bad happens to Michael Jackson as it obviously has done). Whilst those characterized by Relative Identification are at less risk. Hence PROBABILITY comes into play here. Does this illuminate? Anyone can look at a Michael Jackson concert crowd and say that it is passionate. But psychology can categorize, bring in risk and probability… as I have argued here. And I have even said that there is value in this knowledge. This is especially true for anyone who is evolving into absolute identification. Relative Identification is preferable to Absolute Identification because life is more in your own hands if your Identifications are relative as opposed to absolute. Indeed following Michael Jackson‘s death some of his fans who absolutely identified with him committed suicide.1 Another cultural area that psychology should be able to understand is soccer… especially in societies where it is the national sport such as Spain, Italy and England. Again we can picture a crowd at a soccer match. Imagine it as a picture following a VITAL GOAL FOR the team that the fans support. They are going wild with joy. Any layman would say that they are all one. Hardly anyone would think of splitting those fans. We can say that they are all experiencing Absolute Identification. But they are not really all living their life through their soccer team. We can take a random selection from the crowd and change the context. Let‘s say we studied some boys (from the picture) in relation to their level of interest (relative or absolute) in their soccer team. Let‘s put them in the context of the school classroom a few days later following the match. We would observe that 20 some are thinking about school work, some may be focusing on something other than school and other than soccer, and yes, some may well actually live their life through their over-valuing of their soccer team. (Absolute Identification). The latter may look like they are concentrating on their school work, but actually be excited about the match that they were at a few days ago and excited about the fixture coming up at the weekend. Had his team lost at the weekend he would still be dissociated from it and desperate to make up for it at the weekend in the next match. Thus his psychological health is at the mercy of his soccer team. Of course, even if his soccer team is successful he never lives his own life. He therefore sells his psyche. And when someone suffers from Absolute Identification there is increased risk of violence when one understands other soccer teams fans to be in total opposition to what you absolutely identify with. You may even understand that they hate what you absolutely identify with. Not surprisingly therefore, there is a history of soccer crowds spilling over into violence. We have shown that the logic of Absolute and Relative Identification can be applied to the cultural phenomena of Michael Jackson and Soccer. To further strengthen the theory we will now apply it to Cults. Within the context of the Cult, a Relative Identifier may again be indistinguishable from an Absolute Identifier. The Relative and Absolute Identifiers in this case identify with the leader. And unlike a pop concert or a soccer match the Identifiers live with the Cult leader and group 24/7. Hence the distinction between the psychology of the Absolute Identifier and Relative Identifier may never be apparent. But it is precisely because of the reality of competing cultural phenomena and therefore loss of absolute totalitarian control that the Cult Leader needs to shut out the external world. The Absolute Identifier would NOT cease identification in a different context. The Relative Identifier would cease identification. The Absolute Identifier lives his or her life through the Cult hence is at serious risk of neurotic dissociation if the Cult ceases to exist. We have also seen Cults resort to violence when they feel threatened by outsiders; e.g. the Waco Cult in the United States. What does this psychology tell us that we wouldn‘t otherwise know about the subject inquestion? Well, we normally just think about cult members as all nuts. If we are asked for an opinion about cult members, we don‘t tend to ask which member? Yet not all cult members are the same. The point that some cult members reintegrate back into everyday society far more easily than others is evidence of Relative Identification and Absolute Identification. As we have seen Absolute Identification can have serious consequences. In our final example of Absolute Identification we are going to refer to a real-life case that resulted in the murder of a woman who was intimidated by the obsession (towards her) of what we are referring to as Absolute Identification. We have all heard about men becoming obsessed with a woman who is either his lover, ex, or a desired after potential lover. People unable to accept the break-up of a relationship or the lack of reciprocation from a desired-other… are suffering from Absolute Identification. Just like with the other areas of life we have looked into… such a person lives their life through the person that they are infatuated with. And hence there is nothing to fall back on. Other competing cultural 21 aspects of life are completely irrelevant and of no value to the person experiencing Absolute Identification. If other aspects of life were of interest to the Identifier then he wouldn‘t be experiencing Absolute Identification. He would be experiencing Relative Identification. If a man experiences Absolute Identification to a woman then she equates to the whole world. He therefore will not cease his infatuation. Hence if the woman will not be with the man then the man will stalk her saying things like “I have no choice because she will not answer my calls.” He cannot accept the dissociation that would come with the loss of his infatuation. In our other examples the stage (Jackson), stadium (Soccer team) or house (Cult) is the place where the Absolute Identifier goes to be in the environment that they feel the need to be in. But in this example the Absolute Identifier is being denied their need by the very thing that they need. Michael Pech responded to Clare Bernals rejection by saying “If I can‟t have you nobody will.”2 Clare Bernal wouldn‘t let him have her. Hence he carried out his threat by walking into the Harvey Nichols store where Clare worked and (as the Independent UK puts it) ―without a word of warning, took a gun and pumped three to five bullets into the 22-year-old beauty counter worker.‖3 Pech had already demonstrated that his desire for her was at absolute identification levels. He had harassed her and warned her that “If you dare report me I will kill you.”4 Clare had gone to the police over the harassment and they handed the case over to the Southwark Hate Crime Unit. They warned Pech but he kept on stalking her at Harvey Nichols and in other places… after being arrested he still ignored bail conditions following her home on one occasion. A further arrest and warning were again ignored resulting in Clare‘s murder at Harvey Nichols.5 Pech also ended his own life there and then. Clearly then the point of the inclusion of this tragedy in this essay is to demonstrate the importance of Absolute Identification; i.e., its potential seriousness concerning not only the person who is suffering from Absolute Identification but also the undeniably serious consequences it can have for others in certain cases. In this case Absolute Identification led to the absolute consequence for the victim. The importance of the subject-matter clearly shows that Relative Identification whereby the identifier has interest in competing cultural life is far more psychologically healthy than selling your mind and whole life to that which you identify with. CONCLUSION In this essay we have used Robert Segal‘s methodology and applied the tools of Complex Psychology1 to cultural phenomena and life. We have demonstrated that this is not only good for illuminating things about subjects that we would otherwise be in the dark about… but is also a sensible contribution and reform to Complex Psychology whereby Identification is what we primarily refer too… with complexes and dissociation becoming more secondary.2 Complex Psychology becomes the tools necessary in order to adopt an approach to cultural phenomena and life. This is as opposed to Complex Psychology being the isolated subject in it-self. As the subject in-itself it is selfconfirming. It just talks to itself in a self-validating fashion. The work outlined here is also in opposition to the mere short-handing of terms in much post-Jungian Studies… not in the sense of opposing the short-handing of psychological terms but rather opposition to 22 those who do not see it as their task to apply them to illuminate subjects. Applying psychological theories to other topics is necessary in order to say something that we would not otherwise know without the application of psychological theories. Finally, by emphasizing Absolute Identification we focus on something that can be easily demonstrated in the real outer world… i.e., that enables us to subject complexes and dissociation to probability. Thus we establish Complex Psychology as a soft science when it studies those evolving into or suffering from Absolute Identification.3 NOTES Part 1 1: Segal, R, (4th July 2009) IAJS Discussion Forum: Subject: Michael Jackson 2: Segal, R, (6th July 2009) IAJS Discussion Forum: Subject: Michael Jackson 3: ibid 4: Segal, R, (7th July 2009) IAJS Discussion Forum: Subject: Michael Jackson 5: Segal, R, (13th June 2009) IAJS Discussion Forum: Subject Splits 6: Segal, R, (6th July 2009) IAJS Discussion Forum: Subject: Michael Jackson Part 2 1: Sky News (29th June 2009) 2: Pech, M, quoted in Judd, T, (15th September 2005) 3: Judd, T, (15th September 2005) 4: Pech, M, quoted in Judd, T, (15th September 2005) 5: Judd, T, (15th September 2005) Conclusion 1: We take Complex Psychology as being the personalistic wing of Jung‘s work… concerned with complexes and dissociation BUT NOT the more famous transpersonal side of Jung‘s work which focuses on archetypes and the collective unconscious. The fact that we place the 23 emphasis on Identification (as opposed to participation mystique) equates to a borrowing from psychoanalysis more than Jung… albeit Jung too occasionally referred to identification. 2: Anthony Storr writes that ―It was as a result of his work with word-association tests that Jung introduced the term ‗complex‘ into psychology. A complex is a collection of associations linked together by the same feeling-tone. […] When complexes are touched upon, the person concerned shows evidence of emotional disturbance; and Jung demonstrated this disturbance not only by measuring the prolonged reaction-time to stimulus words, but by recording the subjects depth of respiration, the electrical resistance of his skin, and his pulserate. These physiological indicators alter in response to emotion.‖ (Storr, A, 1991, p21&22). In this essay we are not rejecting this logic. But we are placing the emphasis on Identification which we think enables the person in-question to do something about their situation and hence NOT experience the neurotic dissociating complexes in the first place. The way to do that is to not evolve into Absolute Identification. So in our reform of Complex Psychology a complex is an over-identification, over-valuation, it is AN ABSOLUTE IDENTIFICATION. Precisely because one is over-identifying, consciousness is highly sensitive to anything that puts the objects value into question; hence consciousness will fight to repress anything that tries to question it out of fear of the highly neurotic experiencing of dissociation. 3: It would be for a Mental Health Professional to educate and persuade someone who is evolving into (or is actually experiencing) ‗Absolute Identification‘. i.e., educate him or her about the risks involving complexes, dissociation and loss of control over their own psychological life. BIBLIOGRAPHY IAJS Discussion Archives: http://mail.iajsdiscussionlist.org/pipermail/iajsdiscussion_iajsdiscussionlist.org/ Judd, T, (15th September 2005) Harvey Nichols Victim had Reported Stalker to Police (The Independent UK: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/harvey-nicolsvictim-had-reported-stalker-to-police-506906.html) Sky News (29th June 2009) Grieving Jackson fans 'Commit Suicide' http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090629/ten-grieving-jackson-fans-commit-suicide8a3eada.html Storr, A, (1991) Jung (Routledge) 24 KUHN’S PARADIGMS AND JUNGIAN STUDIES Thomas Kuhn was a 20th century philosopher of science who is most famous for his term ‗paradigm‘. Kuhn argued that scientists working within their field rely on shared concepts. These concepts are open-ended. Nevertheless they are contained within particular studies that are regarded as exemplars. They make up what Kuhn terms a paradigm. Paradigms refer to what the field in question knows and it consists of puzzles that require further thinking. In Kuhn‘s own words a paradigm ―stands for the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by members of a given community.‖1 These paradigms tend to be relatively exact, relatively true. They have a relative ability to make sense of the phenomena that they refer to. Hence, if we looked at a previous paradigm that has been overthrown by revolution, it would still explain what it looked into to a relative extent. Basically it will have been relatively exact. Today‘s paradigm is more exact. Tomorrow‘s paradigm still more exact than today‘s. Bodily medical science is an excellent example of such provisional logic. Kuhn explains that despite the seeming longevity of a single paradigm it encounters puzzles that cannot be solved by the logic of the existing paradigm. Those puzzles are termed ‗anomalies.‘ Therefore a revolution occurs. This revolution brings about a new paradigm that solves the puzzles that had been unsolvable using the logic of the old paradigm. At the same time the new paradigm continues to solve the puzzles that the old paradigm itself could solve. The new paradigm does this as well or better than the old paradigm. If we follow Kuhn‘s logic we can see how it is that psychology greatly struggles to establish itself as a paradigm. Early in his masterpiece, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn demonstrates his theory by using the nature of light as an example. He writes ―No period between remote antiquity and the end of the seventeenth century exhibited a single generally accepted view about the nature of light. Instead there were a number of competing schools and sub-schools, most of them espousing one variant or another of Epicurean, Aristotelian, or Platonic theory. One group took light to be particles emanating from material bodies; for another it was a modification of the medium that intervened between the body and the eye; still another explained light in terms of an interaction of the medium with an emanation from the eye; and there were other combinations and modifications besides.‖2 Hence in Kuhn‘s terms the study of light was pre-paradigmatic. Psychology is in this state in the present time. The following is Kuhn discussing the study of light when it was pre-paradigmatic, but if we replace ‗physical optics‘ for ‗psychology‘ then he could equally well be talking about psychology today… ―Being able to take no common body of belief for granted, each writer on physical optics felt forced to build his field anew from its foundations. In doing so, his choice of supporting observation and experiment was relatively free, for there was no standard set of methods or of phenomena that every optical writer felt forced to employ and explain.‖3 Even whilst writing those words Kuhn had other fields in mind that faced the same problem now as physical optics did then. He may even have had psychology in mind as he continues by saying that this ―pattern is not unfamiliar in a number of creative fields 25 today.‖4 Kuhn goes on to emphasize that he is not saying that such pre-paradigmatic thinking is incompatible with ―discovery and invention‖ but ―it is not however, the pattern of development that physical optics acquired after Newton and that the other natural sciences make familiar today.‖5 Psychology isn‘t a paradigm like for example physics, chemistry and biology are. There is only one biology. There are many psychologies. Kuhn makes this point when he describes the transition from pre-paradigm status to paradigm status. Kuhn writes ―a number of schools compete for the domination of a given field. Afterward, in the wake of some notable scientific achievement, the number of schools is greatly reduced, ordinarily to one, and a more efficient mode of scientific practice begins. The latter is generally esoteric and orientated to puzzle-solving, as the work of a group can be only when its members take the foundations of their field for granted.‖6 Hence the schools of Jungian analytical psychology (or Freudian psychoanalysis etc) are pre-paradigmatic at best… as they form only one line of thinking within a wider context of the field of psychology which is itself pre-paradigmatic, precisely because of the existence of all of these different schools of thought that it contains. Jungian Studies should look into perhaps as little as ONE PSYCHOLOGICAL AREA that it thinks that it is the most competent at resolving… whilst leaving other psychological areas to other psychological schools of thought. This area could be for example, MEANING. I deliberately suggest ‗meaning‘ because Jungians tend to be very concerned with this idea indeed… more so than the vast majority of other psychological schools of thought are. Anything that we say here concerning the content of what Jungian Studies would say about Meaning is tentative. Perhaps we can describe meaning as an anomaly to science. Jenny Randles, a British thinker who studies Ufology says that when an abductee is abducted they do not physically move from the place that they were abducted.7 Studies have shown that other people in the area have noted this. Hence, surely the abductee has gone into a deep hypnotic trance. This is an extreme dissociation. Randles says that such a person typically has this experience when they see a UFO. Yet someone else that is with them does not go into the trance. Either the beings on the UFO have abducted the abductees spirit OR (infinitely more likely) the abductee has (as said) dissociated and gone into a hypnotic trance. The unconscious projections onto the UFO are inevitably cultural. If you are convinced that you are experiencing a UFO encounter, and if you are extremely suggestible, then you go into a dissociable trance and experience the culturally determined UFO pattern of abduction. And the point of this is that it is an altered state of consciousness and is meaningful. It strongly suggests that meaning is there for all of us if we connect to it through the psychocultural unconscious. What is not being said here is that we should all go into a deep hypnotic trance. What is being said is that we can go deep without losing touch with reality completely as the abductee does. Hence we are arguing that humans have the ability to go deep enough into the unconscious to connect to psychocultural meaning. This ability is available to us as is also evident in the Near Death Experience (NDE) which (not surprisingly) forces even the most hardened of people into a dissociable hypnotic trance like-state. But this logic is 26 failing to establish itself as a well-worked out paradigm due to competing schools. Jungian Studies, it is suggested here, should cease trying to be complete, and instead focus on one area of psychological concern. ‗Meaning‘ is the suggested subject that we think it should study. Notes 1: Kuhn, 1996, p175 2: Kuhn, 1996, p12 3: Kuhn, 1996, p13 4: ibid 5: ibid 6: Kuhn, 1996, p178 7: Randles, 1999 References Kuhn, T, (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (The University of Chicago Press) Randles, J, (1999) Alien Abductions: My View of Abductions (Website) 27 OVERALL CONCLUSION: A SENSIBLE ROLE FOR THE MIND What amounts to a sensible role for the mind? Should we just dive into the numinous sea? I say NO. The Creative deep unconscious connection side should only be applied when need-be… when on a low. But over-dosing is not recommended. Just like someone can rely too heavily on medication drugs one can rely too heavily on culturally esoteric meaning-orientated phenomena. Otherwise we over-identify. Some people of course absolutely identify. And I have written about the dangers of Absolute Identification in this book. Therefore connecting to cultural meaning should equate to a healthy ‗Relative Identification‘. By relativizing the identification we stay balanced as our mind has competition for its attention. That is essential for health as my essay on Absolute Identification makes clear. The mind thinks and feels in many ways. However the mind is at its best when it THINKS CLEARLY. Thinking is required in order to prevent Absolute Identification. And the mind can only make sense of things IF AND WHEN IT THINKS. Hence for example, you can familiarize yourself with a field of knowledge and then (and only then) should you adopt the necessary critical approach towards it. This is obviously said with Jungian Studies in-mind. Jungian Studies, if it is to make any headway external to itself MUST focus in on one area of study. In this text, ‗meaning‘ is the suggestion concerning the subject matter that Jungian thinkers should study. Illuminating insights into meaning could be demonstrated through studies of those experiencing modern day versions of mystical-like experiences in dissociated-trance-like states, namely the Near Death Experience and Alien Abduction phenomena‘s. Jungian Studies could make such subjects its areas of expertise. Its goal would be advancing knowledge of meaning, enabling people to connect to meaning. Critical Jungian Studies is characterized by focus, evidence, thinking, clarity. The Classical, Archetypal and Developmental schools may remain unchanged but then the distinction between Critical Jungian Studies and them becomes clear. 28 SUPPLEMENT A Personal view concerning how to approach Jungian Studies and psychological life This is a brief follow-up supplement to my small book titled Critical Jungian Studies. The purpose of this essay is to argue for a particular approach towards Jungian psychology. Despite my emphasis on thinking, constructive criticism, application… it is hoped that my approach will be generally welcomed by those of Jungian-orientation. The argument is that Jung‘s work is the field. Field = Object. The subject who thinks about the field applies their ego to it and tries to make sense of the object and tries to maintain or gain health through doing so. Therefore there is an initial projection of Relevance onto Jung‘s work. The approach expounded here takes ego as subject. Clear thinking is enabled when the ego is differentiated from object and other. It creates a necessary split which is a prerequisite for the establishment and advancement of knowledge. The alternative is Identification (or participation mystique to use the Jungian jargon). No knowledge comes from this alternative. Rather the ego subject is at the mercy of the object because if something negative happens concerning the object, then the ego subject experiences a painful loss of soul/dissociation. My essay on Absolute and Relative Identification (in Critical Jungian Studies) is obviously influenced by Jungian orientated thinking. (The Jungian Object). It is right that those within Jungian Studies who read it think such things. No ones knowledge exists in isolation. Everyone works with the tools of their field. Hence a Jungian or Post-Jungian reading that essay should associate it with terms such as participation mystique, projection, dissociation, loss of soul and complexes. Something can be said here concerning complexes. Complexes can be both positive and negative. Although they are sometimes just negative. So for instance in my essay on Absolute and Relative Identification I referred to phenomena whereby the person identified with external phenomena that they had a powerful positive disposition toward. But the identification was absolute, dogmatic, controlling etc. And the risk of a very hard fall indeed was all too clear for the outsider to see. What they had done was failed to split themselves from the object of their desire. They had merged with it and their subject ego became subordinate to the external object. I could have written another essay that was purely about negative complexes that are repressed and never wanted to be conscious. Those who suffer a traumatic experience are an example of that. There is an attempt to repress the trauma and it exists as a powerful and negative complex. The worse the traumatic event - - - the less successful the repression - - - which may break through into conscious flashbacks regularly throughout everyday waking life. 29 If we must not absolutely identify due to loss of subject ego sovereignty - - - yet if we need an object of relevance (i.e. in order to give life relevance) then is the approach being suggested here purely one of criticizing and applying? Not exactly. Thinking is essential. Without thinking we are doomed. But relatedness is also essential. In everyday life we see people and engage in the social world. We cannot absolutely identify with these people. That would destroy our psyche for sure. But we do not approach them with a critical distrust. That would also be most unhealthy. Nor can we just accept everything they ever say as if they were superior to us. Hence our approach in everyday life must be one that equates to distance and relatedness.1 The Other person is ‗Not I‘ but is to be related too. And that is our approach to the Jungian Object. It too must not be absolutely identified with, but is relevant, is thought about, is not just dismissed, is related too. (Distance and Relatedness). And all of this is for the gaining or maintaining of health. The Jungian field is about the conscious and unconscious psyche. How then does my approach to the field relate to the all-important conscious and unconscious? Let‘s refer here to two key sources: Carl Jung‘s Memories, Dreams, Reflections and Wolfgang Pauli‘s The Influence of Archetypal Ideas on the Scientific Theories of Kepler. At the end of the MDR chapter on Life after Death Jung writes that mans task is to ―become conscious of the contents that press upwards from the unconscious [but that] he [should not] persist in his unconsciousness, nor remain identical with the unconscious elements of his being.‖2 For me, and for Aniela Jaffe3, meaning is found in the unconscious. But to absolutely identify with it would be neurotic and put the person at severe risk of a painful dissociation. Hence Jung is right to emphasize the balance whereby the individual experiences but does not persist in (or identify with) the unconscious. This means that the individual experiences a similar psychological reality to that highlighted by Jung‘s collaborator; Wolfgang Pauli regarded himself as someone who valued the feeling-toned life and the life of the thinker. And as a leading physicist of his time he was therefore interested in the intermediary stage between pre-modern religious ideas and modern critical thinking. He was therefore interested in the work of Johannes Kepler (15711630). According to Pauli, Kepler was on the one hand, looking back at the participation mystique past which was magical/symbolic - - - and on the other hand - - - Kepler was adopting the modern scientific method.4 Kepler (and Pauli himself) straddle the psychological borderlands.5 It requires psychological skill - - - so as to not over-identify with your own field yet think using your field‘s concepts. To this end I emphasize the unconscious for meaning, but consciousness so as not to identify with unconscious meaning - - - and for distance and relatedness. Just like we need distance and relatedness with other people, so too we need distance and relatedness with our own ideas, our own thoughts, our own field. NOTES 1: Marie Louise Von Franz concludes likewise. In her final ever lecture she says that ―differentiated relationships […] include a certain distance [and that] a differentiated 30 feeling relationship would include a deep empathy and closeness to the other and a certain distance based on differentiation.‖ (Von Franz, p17) She concludes ―We must develop a differentiated feeling relationship including the postulate of distance to the powers within, an I-Thou relationship with the god or gods, or the Numinosum, and not an uncritical religious conviction of any sort. Relatedness to other human beings outside and to the archetypal powers within go together […] Everything becomes a living encounter with outer and inner realities to which we have to relate.‖ (Von Franz, p18) 2: Jung, 1995, p358 3: Jaffe, 1984 4: Pauli, in Jung and Pauli, 1955 5: Borderland(s) is a term expounded by the Jungian orientated writer Jerome Bernstein. (2005) Bibliography Bernstein, J, (2005) Living in the Borderland: The Evolution of Consciousness and the Challenge of healing Trauma (Routledge) Jaffe, A, (1984) The Myth of Meaning in the Work of C. G. Jung (Daimon Verlag) Jung, C, (1995) Memories, Dreams, Reflections (Recorded and Edited by Aniela Jaffe) (Fontana Press) Jung, C, & Pauli, W, (1955) The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche (Bollingen Series, Pantheon Books: New York) Von Franz, M. L, (2008: Jung Journal: Culture and Psyche: Vol 2: No 2) C. G. Jung‘s Rehabilitation of the Feeling Function in our Civilisation (University of California Press) 31 New from Chiron Publications: Where the Shadows Lie A Jungian Interpretation of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings by Pia Skogemann $24.95 Praise for the Danish edition: "Skogemann goes through the whole of Tolkien's work—characters, landscapes, and events—to determine what kind of archetypes and basic situations from the collective unconscious are appearing. And she does it with enormous zest." —Anne Knudsen, Weekendavisen The author shows why Tolkien's brilliant story has touched so many people.... Exciting reading for all Tolkien fans who want to understand the story on a deeper, psychological level." —Martin Hjelmborg, Lektørudtalelse Where the Shadows Lie takes the reader on a journey through Tolkien's Middle-earth, following the hobbits, their companions, and the characters they encounter on their quest. Along the way, Skogemann reveals the deep symbolic layers that are the source of joy and enchantment that many find in reading The Lord of the Rings. Aragorn, with the aid of Gandalf, Legoli, and Gimli, ascends to the throne and becomes the center of a great, unified kingdom—a symbol of the collective Self. The four hobbits, representing individual ego-consciousness, are transformed by the quest and acquire the psychological tools they need to renew the Shire—the small domain enfolded in the great. Jung's theories of the collective unconscious and the archetypes provide a key to understanding the forces of fantasy that are so powerful in Tolkien's masterpiece—and thereby a key to understanding ourselves and the events of the outside world in our modern times. Pia Skogemann, born in Copenhagen, has a master's degree in comparative religion and has been a Jungian analyst in private practice since 1978. She is a co-founder of the C.G. Jung Institute in Copenhagen and has served as a consulting editor for Journal of Jungian Theory and Practice since 2006. First published in 1984, she is the author of twelve books and numerous articles on femininity, individuation, fairy tales, dreams, and archetypes. This is her first work in English. For more information, visit www.piaskogemann.dk. Chiron titles are available at www.lanternbooks.com. 32 tp://www.piaskogemann.dk.‖ Chiron titles are available at 32