Queering gender: anima/animus and the paradigm of emergence

An exploration into the world of the queer others of gender and sexuality moves us beyond the binary opposition of male/masculinity and female/femininity in our understanding of gender and expands the meaning of gender and sexuality for all humans. A revision of Jungian gender theory that embraces all genders and sexualities is needed not only to inform our clinical work but also to allow us to bring Jungian thought to contemporary gender theory and to cultural struggles such as gay marriage. The cognitive and developmental neurosciences are increasingly focused on the importance of body biology and embodied experience to the emergence of mind. In my exploration of gender I ask how gender comes to be experienced in a developing body and how those embodied gender feelings elaborate into a conscious category in the mind, a gender position. My understanding of emergent mind theory suggests that one's sense of gender, like other aspects of the mind, emerges very early in development from a self-organizing process involving an individual's particular body biology, the brain, and cultural environment. Gendered feeling, from this perspective, would be an emergent aspect of mind and not an archetypal inheritance, and the experiencing body would be key to gender emergence. A revised Jungian gender theory would transcend some of the limitations of Jung's anima/animus (A/A) gender thinking allowing us to contribute to contemporary gender theory in the spirit of another Jung; the Jung of the symbolic, the mythic, and the subtle body. This is the Jung who invites us to the medial place of the soul, bridging the realm of the physical body and the realm of the spirit.     

Tina Keller's analyses with C. G. Jung and Toni Wolff, 1915-1928

This historical essay documents the clinical practices of C. G. Jung and Toni Wolff with their analysand Tina Keller, a Swiss physician and psychotherapist, during the formative years of analytical psychology (1915-1928). The topic is investigated through an examination of primary documents, largely unpublished, in English and German, based on Keller's autobiographical writings. It presents biographical information on Keller's life and details of her analyses with Jung and Wolff, emphasizing the technique of active imagination and describing the clinical practices of Jung and Wolff in Keller's analyses.     

A Review of Jesus: A Psychological Biography

Capps's book uses historical, sociological, and psychological methods to probe the personal identity and self-understanding of Jesus. This reviewer suggests that historical, sociological, and psychological methods are modes of discourse that are modern forms of myth. Myth is understood as any narrative form that is used, and/or taken for granted, as a way of self-understanding and understanding the world. These disciplines are useful critical tools with which to explore the text and its world, but they do not guarantee knowledge about the past. As modern modes of discourse they create narratives (i.e., myths) about the past, that for us are preferred epistemological pathways. Jesus Christ is the ultimate model of the God-person relationship in the Christian west. Therefore, any serious attempt to render a realistic portrait of Jesus using contemporary modes of describing reality has the possibility of effecting a profound transformation of the images of God and Jesus. This then can transform our own relationship with God. The value of Capps's book is not in any knowledge it might give us about Jesus, but in the transformation it can effect within the reader, and the author, of central religious images. Psychoanalytic and developmental theories are limited in their explanatory effectiveness because they are materialistic and personalistic (reductive). The analytical psychology of Carl Jung and the archetypal psychology of James Hillman are proposed in order to add a transpersonal dimension to Capps's approach to the personality of Jesus.     

Misunderstanding Jung: the afterlife of legends

F. X. Charet's article, 'Understanding Jung: recent biographies and scholarship', is full of errors and legends. In this article, I demonstrate the tendentiousness of his criticisms of the historical work of Eugene Taylor and myself concerning Jung's linkages with the subliminal psychology of Théodore Flournoy, William James, and F. W. H. Myers, and the fallaciousness of his criticism of my claim that Memories, Dreams, Reflections was not Jung's autobiography.     

Understanding Jung: recent biographies and scholarship

The tendency to associate Jung with Freud has undergone a change and both are increasingly perceived as founders of depth psychological schools whose exact relationship is unclear. The separation of the two was largely due to Jung's rejection by the psychoanalytic community because of his perceived spiritual inclinations. Recent scholarship has emphasized these spiritual inclinations in both a positive and negative way and brought to light Jung's non-Freudian sources, while other Jungian practitioners are seeking a closer association with psychoanalysis. This conflicting development is related to tendencies in Jung himself that are evident in his own life and in research conducted into the writing and publication of Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Though the status of the latter as Jung's autobiography has been called into question there remains the necessity to explain the myth of Jung's life enshrined there and the impact this has had on a public looking for meaning in a time of considerable change.     

The I Ching as a Potential Jungian Application: History and Practice

Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung had a lifelong interest in the I Ching after discovering it in 1919. Jung’s interest in the I Ching is arguably more practical than purely theoretical or intellectual, and references to I Ching divination appear frequently in his various publications, seminars, letters and clinical practice records. After a few observations on the history of the study of the I Ching in China, the author categorizes Jung’s three uses of the I Ching as physical use (to preview future potentials of outer reality), psychological use (to reveal one’s psychological state), and psychical approach (to engage with the divine through “神”[“shen”, spiritual agencies]). Finally, the author discusses the current Jungian engagement by demonstrating clinical cases in contemporary times. Some Jungian analysts practise I Ching divination to obtain insights into the physical and psychological state of therapeutic relationships and for personal development. This paper is a historical and critical engagement of the Jungian practice of I Ching divination.     

Art within analysis: scapegoat, transference and transformation

Through clinical example and pictorial illustration, the author examines ways in which art offers a particular means of psychological transformation in states which may otherwise be in expressable. A transference to the art work itself is proposed. It is submitted that, mediated within the transference/ countertransference dynamic, this 'scapegoat transference' facilitates a particular process of psychological differentiation. The aesthetic qualities of art presented within analysis will resonate with other countertransference affects. Clinical material demonstrates how observation of this--aesthetic countertransference--leads to a distinction between the 'diagrammatic' and the 'embodied image. The process of integration of shadow material is furthered by the temporary safe-keeping of the art work by the analyst.     

Family matters The descendants of Freud and Jung

A brief history of what it has meant to be a Jungian analyst and/or analytical psychologist in the United States and England is portrayed. At first the differences between psychoanalysis and analytical psychology were very great, and there was great animosity between the two schools. The conflict was much stronger in the United States than in England where Jungians developed a much better rapport with psychoanalysis. Recent theoretical developments within psychoanalysis, such as the development of self theory and intersubjectivity, as well as speaking about religious issues in a new way, have brought psychoanalysis closer to analytical psychology. On the other hand, analytical psychology has been enriched by an increased awareness of the importance of developmental issues and transference and countertransference. The implications for both psychoanalysis and analytical psychology are explored.     

The plight and promise of contemporary psychoanalysis in the light of its social history

This paper addresses the many changes which have beset psychoanalysis and the psychoanalytic community since the widespread, general acceptance of both by the educated, middle-class public in the 1950s. It attempts to explain these changes, at least in part, by reflecting upon them in the light of the history of the psychoanalytic movement and upon the rise of dynamic psychology as well. Many in the psychoanalytic community think that their work is being ignored, devalued, and even attacked by an increasing number of influential persons and organizations. Critics claim that, epistemologically, psychoanalysis is scientifically invalid; therapeutically, it is ineffective; economically, it is too costly and takes too long; and theoretically, it is pluralized to the point of fragmentation. This is the plight of psychoanalysis. This paper argues that many of the major problems which once beset Freud and his colleagues, and which beset the psychoanalytic community today, are best understood in terms of two sociological processes, legitimation and institutionalization. Legitimation is the socio-cultural process whereby a new idea (e.g., Freud's theories, Jung's theories) contests the established web of ideas which give coherence and meaning to social and personal identity. Institutionalization refers to the way legitimated ideas replace once-contested views of reality. The single most decisive factor generating the plight of contemporary psychoanalysis is the ‘decision’ (1) to socially locate (institutionalize) psychoanalysis in institutes, rather than in clinics or universities, and (2) to represent psychoanalysis to the public (legitimation) as a medical science. In order to illustrate and advance these claims, I first define and distinguish sociologically the institute, the clinic and the university. Second, I describe the origins and development of the ‘decision’, made by Freud and his followers, to locate or institutionalize psychoanalysis in institutes. Third, I compare and contrast this early pattern of legitimation and institutionalization with that of the present-day psychoanalytic movement in England (relatively benign institutionalization) and in the United States (relatively destructive institutionalization). Throughout this discussion I draw upon the new literature on the history of psychoanalysis, past and present. As for the ‘promise’ for psychoanalysis, it can materialize insofar as psychoanalysis establishes contact with the clinic and the university (re-legitimation) and insofar as that contact becomes so self-evident that it is taken for granted (i.e., it is re-institutionalized).