A CONVERSATION WITH ARYEH MAIDENBAUM
BOL: To many therapists practicing today Jung is a figure in
the history of their art, but not a guide to present practice. At the
same time, I sense something of a resurgence of interest in Jung's
work.
Is my impression correct, and how would you characterize the
contemporary
Jungian approach to psychotherapy?
MAIDENBAUM: Your observation that there is a resurgence of interest in Jung's work is contextually correct though semantically speaking I would take out the term "re." For it is not as if Jung's work was once popular, then faded and is now re-emerging. Rather, it is more like a steady buildup all along for Jung's writings were basically neglected, indeed intentionally ignored by academia and the psychoanalytic world. The reasons are manifold and perhaps at some future time I could elaborate on this. But, for now, suffice it to say that to this day, Jungian psychology is not taught at almost all major Universities and still thought askance of by most Analytic training programs. Interestingly enough, however, all along there was kind of an underground (unconscious?) interest in his writings by individuals interested in applying his psychology and ideas to such fields as Literature, Theology, History, Sociology and Philosophy to name a few. Such luminaries in their field as Campbell, Eliade and even Toynbee all drew on, and credited, Jung for some of their own insights.
At the same time, since 1960, the number one best seller of all the University Press books was the Collected Works of Jung put out by Princeton University Press. So, students and faculty were all interested in Jung- -but apparently not openly enough to encourage "official" recognition by covering his work in the curriculum.... especially not the psychology departments.
In the mid-1980"s, Bill Moyers interviewed Campbell on National Public Television. We all know the power of the tube and what media exposure (even on educational tv) can do. So, the so-called re-emergence began..... It was followed by Robert Bly and Iron John, Clarissa Estes: Women Who Run With The Wolves, and last but not least Care of the Soul by Thomas Moore--all best sellers and openly crediting Jung's psychology and ideas for its influence on their work. The "New Age" has dawned. Jung the mystic is now acceptable publicly--or is it that mysticism has now "re-emerged" as well? Probably a bit of both and a kind of answer to the "bottom line" approach of western society.
I think what it all boils down to is the need for some sort of spirituality in our culture--something Jung definitely does provide in his statement that one of the archetypes and driving instincts we all have is the search for spirit. In short, it's not just aggression and sex but the need for meaning (spirit) that propels us as individuals. Jung wrote of this over half a century ago. This, more than any other reason, I believe, is what is making Jung's ideas more visible today. Just look at the NY Times Bestseller Lists each week. Almost half the non-fiction books on it on any given week deal with spirituality in some form- be it roads not taken, near death and past lives experiences and/or "Care of the Soul."
The second part of your question requires an elaborate answer. However, briefly, the contemporary approach of Jungian psychotherapy (as I would like to see it) requires a blending of Jung's ideas [spirit, archetypes, and a more symbolic approach to the psyche and the collective] and solid clinical skills. Jung himself, in his book Psychological Types (1921), wrote that some individuals require a Freudian approach, some Adlerian and some Jungian so-to -speak. We could expand that today to say that a good Jungian Analyst should be familiar with the Object Relations approach, Self Psychology, etc... as well as the role of medication if and when necessary. In short, he or she must be based in and have the foundation of a Jungian approach but be equally well grounded in a solid clinical base. This gives one the best of both worlds. The wisdom to know when to apply which is the gift of the true analyst.
MAIDENBAUM: The reasons Jung has been ignored by academia are multi-faceted but intertwined. One way or the other, Jung's concept of Individuation, translated back to him as an individual within the Analytical establishment, is threatening to the overall system. What it boils down to is the emphasis on Jung the messenger as opposed to the message of Jung.
To begin, part of his problem of wider acceptance began with his break from Freud. Freud and Jung used each other: Freud, jewish and not accepted in University circles in Vienna (he was denied a Professorship for being Jewish) was hoping to show that psychoanalysis was not just a "jewish" profession. Jung, part of the medical and Christian establishment in Switzerland, seemed like a perfect candidate to carry Freud's work out of the small circle in Vienna. Ultimately, with Jung projecting a father figure onto Freud, and then (in the true psychoanalytical spirit of having to kill off the father) breaking with him, Jung was left out in the cold so to speak as Psychoanlysis kept progressing. Jung's belief in the Collective Unconscious, not in place of the personal but in addition to, and concentration on de- emphasizing the sexual component of dream interpretation, put him at odds with Freud and his followers. Additionally, Jung's being open to exploring the world of the mystical ostensibly was at odds with the "scientific" explorations of this new field called psychoanalysis. I say ostensibly because Jung prided himself on being a scientist above all and was not pushing mysticism but rather being open to it. (Ironically, not known to many, Freud himself was attracted to the same area and through the influence of both Jung and Ferenczi dabbled in the area of the parapsychological as well. He just didn't push it as Jung did).
For example, when asked if he believed in Ghosts, Jung is said to have replied: "I don't believe in Ghosts, but ........... I don't disbelieve in them either. " In other words, he wanted to experience and research the transpersonal rather than make sweeping statements one way or the other. This is threatening to the so-called scientific establishment which is intent on keeping such subjects out of even the realm of serious exploration. Secondly, when the Nazis came to power and would not allow any Jewish Psychologists or Psychiatrists to be a part of the psychoanalytical group, Jung was offered the presidency and accepted. Big mistake! He claims to have wanted to help his Jewish colleagues from within but I suspect that it had a lot to do with his own shadow as well. Here was a chance to push his theories over the Freudians. Eventually, he too resigned and was blacklisted by the Nazis but, in-between much damage was done to his personal reputation as he was used (his name was signed to an editorial which he apparently did not write for a nazi propoganda piece introducing one of the editions for which he was editor. The journal was printed in Germany and his name was the titular one as editor but he did none of the work on the journal.) by the Nazis and underestimated the power of national socialism and the German revival in the 1930's. After the war, Jung admitted he had made a mistake but despite the fact that many of his closest followers and students were Jewish, he was never forgiven by the "establishment" of psychoanlaysis--one that in the U.S. for example is composed of significant numbers of Jewish people. In short, because of political/religious/competitive overtones on the one hand and adding a spiritual dimension in place of the overwhelmingly, Freudian, sexual emphasis on the other Jung managed to alienate and turn-off established psychoanlytical circles.
Regarding my mentioning that some people should see therapists who are not Jungian, what I meant is that some people would not do well with a strictly "Jungian" approach. However, any good Jungian Analyst (from my perspective) ought to be trained well enough to know, recognize and work with an individual without being "strictly Jungian" so to speak. [Nevertheless, in the process of therapy, it cannot be emphasized enough that the importance of the analyst/patient connection comes first and without that no single theory work unless that "chemistry" exists as well - be it Jungian, Freudian or any other approach.] In other words, I as a therapist do similar work to that of a Self psychologist, an Object Relations therapist, a Freudian, Adlerian or whatever when called for. I use Jung's ideas as an orientation point to help me understand the psychological dynamics but not necessarily to work any differently than another therapist. I try to approach each client as an individual with specific needs and not mold the Jungian concepts onto them. Jung himself, in fact, wrote that "I would change all my theories to help a single person."
MAIDEBAUM:
Regarding your question as to the particular profile of an individual
"ready"
for a Jungian Analysis:
Basically, what a Jungian approach would be is to work with the
deeper layers
of the unconscious. In order to approach these layers one should be
of
sufficient ego strength and have dealt with first half of life issues.
Additionaly, and again this is my particular slant on what a "Jungian
Analysis" is about, it is not too dissimilar from Erikson's talking about
adulthood in terms of "Generativity vs. Stagnation."
Often, when one reaches the point where dealing with second half of life issues, one should have successfully traversed the different stages of development that Erikson discusses. Likewise, Jung saw that the deeper layers of the unconscious contain material that could be healing and regenerative. In a sense, he was the first of the great pioneers of psychotherapy who wrote and spoke of "adult develpment." Our personalities need not stagnate; all is not inevitably set in stone by the time we reach puberty. However, whether one is seeing a Jungian or therapist of another persuasion, the issues that lead to good ego formation must have been dealt with prior to delving into the deeper stratas within us.
A Jungian Analyst, drawing on both the personal and the collective layers; on symbols and myths which might manifest themselves in an individual's life; on dreams on the one hand and interpersonal relationships on the other, would analyze how to turn that feeling of stagnation often experienced at midlife and transform the energy into one that contains a creative process. In order to do this, however, one must have a solid ego base from which to work- otherwise the psychotic element is what could be activated. It is much like a swimmer diving down [into the unconscious] and then coming back up [dealing with the everyday ego needs and life itself]. If you can't swim, you can't dive.
BOL: Then the ideal patient for Jungian therapy is someone mature in years as well as in psychological development who is experiencing a sense of stagnation. The patient is in what others have called a midlife crisis. The goal of the therapy is to overcome the stagnation by unleashing creative forces within the person. Did I get that right?
MAIDENBAUM: Yes, you have got it right. Certainly most of Jung's work is geared towards that type of patient. He concentrates on the second half of life; his main contributions are in that area.
Of course, like all great works that paved the way, Jung's ideas and applications have been taken forward and applied to different areas. Michael Fordham, a London psychiatrist who just recently passed away, felt Jungian psychology could be applied to working with children, indeed even for adults the developmental aspects of childhood should be factored in to a Jungian Analysis. Ultimately, the British school divided into different areas of concentration and work with children is a significant contribution they have made to the ideas of Jung.
Additionally, Jungian psychology has been applied to different areas of work. For instance, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is one of the most widely used career counseling tests in the U.S. Last year close to 2 million such tests were given within the context of career advisement and corporate management consulting. The test is base completely on Jung's concept of psychological types, i.e. introversion/extraversion, etc. Similarly, within the context of a Jungian Analysis today, this [Jung based] instrument can help patients of different ages, i.e. not just those with mid-life issues, including couples counseling; understanding transference/countertransference issues, etc.
Nevertheless, from my vantage point, simply put, yes, the ideal patient/candidate/analysand for a Jungian Analysis would be someone in mid-life or beyond with a well enough developed ego function to delve into the unconscious and re-emerge and preferably some therapy prior to "going Jungian" though this could be with a Jungian Analyst as well. In other words, a well trained Jungian Analyst should be able to work in different ways with different individuals and be versed in the other, especially contemporary, approaches to the psyche.