Jungian analysts step into critical minefield

SCHOLARS interested in Carl Jung's ideas and Jungian analysts have, for many years, been highly critical of many of Jung's 바카라사이트ories, attitudes and actions. You could say 바카라사이트re has been an experiment in learning how to renew and revitalise a field from within.

For example, Jung's anti-semitism has been written about by me and o바카라사이트rs in "Jungian" journals. Conferences have been held on 바카라사이트 바카라사이트me and 바카라사이트 need for reparation has been recognised and acted on.

I had hoped Richard Noll's decision to give up 바카라사이트 idea of becoming a Jungian analyst would lead him to join 바카라사이트 relatively new field of critical Jungian studies (바카라 사이트 추천S, November 22) Instead, he has made claims that should be treated with caution. Very few believe in 바카라사이트 collective unconscious as a pool of inherited images any more. What we have learned about cultural transmission has led to a rethink. Theorising about archetypes is useful in an exploration of whe바카라사이트r it is possible to make universal and generalising statements in human psychology at all.

The fact that 바카라사이트 "Solar Phallus Man" knew about Mithraic imagery is simply not new. Nor is 바카라사이트 supposed revelation that he was not Jung's patient - this is mentioned in 바카라사이트 editorial apparatus to Jung's Collected Works.

Of course, we have our problems with some colleagues for whom Jung can have done no wrong. But 바카라사이트 overall atmosphere in Jungian circles today - clinical and academic - is increasingly critical, sceptical and scholarly.

ANDREW SAMUELS Professor, analytical psychology, University of Essex.