Imaginal action: towards a Jungian conception of enactment,and an extraverted counterpart to active imagination

This theoretical paper considers the fashion in which Jung's psychology radically challenges modern assumptions concerning the nature of subjectivity. With an eye for the clinical implications of Jung's late work, the author introduces the idea of imaginal action. In order to explain what is meant by this, the paper begins by exploring how Jung's thinking demonstrates an underlying bias towards introversion. It is argued that while Jung's interest in synchronicity ultimately resulted in his developing a worldview that might address the introverted biases of his psychology, the clinical implications of this shift have not been sufficiently clarified. With reference to some short examples from experience, the author outlines a conception of relational synchronicity wherein the intrapsychic emerges non‐projectively within the interpersonal field itself. Comparing and contrasting these occurrences to the more introverted practice of active imagination, it is claimed that such a notion is implicit in Jung's work and is needed as a corrective to his emphasis on interiority. The author suggests that imaginal action might be conceived as a distinctly Jungian approach to the psychoanalytic notion of enactment. It is also shown how the idea outlined might find further support from recent developments in the field of transpersonal psychology.     

The ethical dimension of analytical psychology

The centrality of the ethical dimension in Carl Gustav Jung's analytical psychology is demonstrated through careful reference to fundamental moments in the Jungian text. Tracking Jung's statements about the primacy of the ‘moral function’ (or ‘moral factor’) in the cure of neurosis as well as in the process of individuation, the ethical nature of the psychotherapeutic praxis proposed by Jung is highlighted. This allows us to see the ethical aspect of psychological conflicts, and thus to understand better why individuation can be seen as a ‘moral achievement’. Finally, the intelligible ethical structure of Jungian psychotherapeutic praxis is exposed.     

Multiproblem Families Referred to Youth Mental Health: What's in a Name?

The purpose of this study was threefold, namely (1) to differentiate between multiproblem families and control families on characteristics and processes within the family based on a theoretical framework, (2) to identify multiproblem families by establishing cut‐off scores on various questionnaires, and (3) to categorize multiproblem families into subtypes by cluster analyses. Various questionnaires were administered to multiproblem families (n = 85) and control families (n = 150). Results showed that what we propose to refer to as multiproblem families present a broad range of problems on seven domains: (1) child factors, (2) parental factors, (3) childrearing problems (inadequate or inconsistent parenting), (4) family functioning problems, (5) contextual problems, (6) social network problems, and (7) mental health care problems. Further, reliable cut‐off scores were established for various questionnaires. Finally, three types of families were found: (1) community‐problem families, (2) multiproblem families, and (3) child‐focused mild‐problem families. This paper looks to advance an evidence‐based definition and assessment of “multiproblem families” suggesting the possible value of defining and assessing multiproblem families in relation to these seven dimensions. Moreover, the classification of multiproblem families stresses the importance of providing tailored treatments.