Jung

by Phil Goss

  Jung is famously quoted (Sedgwick, 2003, p. 10) as saying, ‘Thank God I’m Jung and not a Jungian.’ He meant he did not approve of assigning generalized definitions of ‘being Jungian’, since it implied a kind of uniform set of principles and practices that everyone involved would adhere to in the same way. Jung was pointing out that this is not an individuated way of thinking, and that all so-called ‘Jungians’ or ‘Post-Jungians’ need to follow their unique, authentic, path.

  CLASSICAL JUNGIAN

  A classical Jungian approach adheres consistently to the framework established by Jung to understand the human psyche. However, one of the most prominent advocates of staying ‘true’ to Jung’s approach, Gerhard Adler (1961), recognized the field had to evolve, proposing that the classical form would inevitably generate some variations from orthodox to unorthodox, while paying heed to important developments in psychoanalysis.

  Nevertheless, key elements of a ‘classical Jungian’ approach to therapy can be identified, such as the centrality of the amplification of archetypal images, alchemy, full adherence to Jung’s model of the psyche and the implications for therapeutic process (e.g. working with persona, then shadow, then anima–animus, then self as a natural analytic ‘progression’). As Samuels (1985) notes, a classical Jungian sees the self as pivotal, supported by amplification of archetypal imagery and influences, with developmental personality factors as less significant (though still relevant). So, for example, there would be less emphasis on work with transference–countertransference and more on work with symbols of self and archetypes.

  ARCHETYPAL JUNGIAN

  There is crossover between the ‘archetypal’ and the ‘classical’ Jungians. The distinction, however, is around how archetypes are perceived and worked with. The main inspiration behind the archetypal approach was the American analyst and thinker James Hillman (1926–2011). Hillman proposed that images generated from archetypal operation create our experience of reality, and therefore our development and therapeutic growth depend on working with these images.

  Hillman’s writing reflects this position in how he explores closely all facets of image that arise from archetypal processes. Here is an example from his paper on the colour ‘blue’ and what it represents psychologically in the alchemical process between ‘blackening’ and ‘whitening’:

  ‘The blue transit between black and white is like… sadness which emerges from despair as it proceeds towards reflection. Reflection here comes from or takes one into a blue distance…the Jungian notion of blue as “the thinking function”… (refers)… to blue’s ancient association with the impersonal depths of sky and sea, the wisdom of Sophia, moral philosophy and truth.’

  Hillman, 1980, pp. 1–3

  There is an emphasis on guided fantasy and active imagination, and this chimes with Henri Corbin’s (1972) concept of mundus imaginalis (imaginal world), which operates in us as an image-making cognitive function generated by sense impressions. Exploration of this provides elucidation of deeper meaning, and therefore growth and healing of the psyche. He often referred to our task in life as ‘soul making’ (Hillman, 1980). This approach prioritizes the exploration and interpretation of archetypal imagery, followed by an emphasis on the self, then the development of personality and working with transference phenomena.

  Spotlight: Hillman on the world’s problems

  In We’ve Had a Hundred Years of Psychotherapy and the World’s Getting Worse (Hillman and Ventura, 1993), Hillman contributes to the debate about whether depth psychology can provide more input to social and political problems discussed in Chapter 18:

  ‘By removing the soul from the world, and not recognizing that the soul is also in the world, psychotherapy can’t do its job anymore. The buildings are sick, the institutions are sick, the banking system’s sick, the schools, the streets – the sickness is out there.’

  Hillman and Ventura, 1993, p. 4

  DEVELOPMENTAL JUNGIAN

  This school provides a bridge into more integrative Jungian therapeutic approaches, which we will come back to. In Chapter 14 we looked at Michael Fordham’s approach to Jungian child analysis and noted how influenced he had been by object relations thinking and practice (Astor, 1995). The incorporation of key ideas from Klein and Winnicott reflected a new emphasis on the importance of child development.

  This new theoretical and clinical focus emphasized the central importance of healthy de-integration and re-integration by the infant, facilitated by key carers to enable the self to support healthy growth by the ego, and help the child to establish trusting relationships with others and find their place in the world. The focus on personality development, and the consonant need to focus on relationship and transference– countertransference in the analysis, is central. This elicits patterns of formative influence as well as drawing on archetypal imagery and symbols of the self where these might inform understanding of these patterns.

  Psychodynamic thinking has touched the work of most Jungian practitioners to a meaningful degree, as it complements the ‘bigger picture’ of a classical Jungian model by locating early influences on the development of the analysand. In the UK, for example, learning how to work with object relations principles is a common feature of Jungian trainings. Meanwhile, the classical Jungian tradition in a ‘purer’ form is still at work, such as in the analytic trainings offered in the birthplace of this tradition, Zurich.

  Is Jungian analysis effective?

  It is generally recognized that the evidence base for depth psychological approaches (psychoanalytic, psychodynamic, Jungian) is limited and there is some way to go before this catches up with the extensive research provided to evaluate cognitive behavioural approaches to therapy (Dobson and Dobson, 2009). However, there has been some valuable and revealing research conducted about Jungian analysis that supports the arguments for its effectiveness.

  For example (Roesler, 2013), the 2000–3 ‘PAL’ research project in Switzerland involved 37 analysands and 26 analysts. Of the analysands, 57 per cent had depressive disorders and 47 per cent personality disorders. The average length of treatment was just under three years, and 90 sessions was the mean number of sessions involved.

  Researchers, analysts and analysands were asked to evaluate progress at various points during the analysis with tools appropriate to each group: for example, analysands used the SCL-90-R, a widely used self-evaluation tool in psychotherapy research, as well as the Interpersonal Problems Inventory. Findings showed a very significant reduction of the Global Severity Index, which this tool measures for severity of presenting symptoms. In terms of the Inventory, there was significant reduction of personal problems. There were also consistently positive findings from the evaluations of the researchers: 90 per cent of analysands described the outcome as positive or better, and 75 per cent of the therapists likewise.

  Although naturalistic research studies can be criticized as not being as robust as the ‘gold standard’ of random control trials, they are still comprehensive, valid and reliable in mapping progress and change in treatment. There is certainly more to be done to further test and demonstrate the efficacy of Jungian psychotherapeutic approaches. Nevertheless, as Roesler argues:

  ‘Results of several studies show that Jungian treatment moves patients from a level of severe symptoms to a level where one can speak of psychological health. These significant changes are reached by Jungian therapy with an average of 90 sessions, which makes Jungian psychotherapy an effective and cost-effective method.’

  Roesler, 2013, p. 562

  Expressive arts therapies

  When Jung took time out, as a mature adult, to play with stones he had found on the shores of Lake Zurich, spontaneously building structures and allowing symbols and patterns to emerge and paying heed to his unconscious, he helped inspire the emerging fields of arts therapies (e.g. visual art therapy, drama therapy). Valuing a childlike stance, he illustrated why expressive arts therapies – spontaneously drawing a shape or a fuller picture, for example
– can be so effective (Jennings and Minde, 1994). When we sit with an image, and notice associations and intuitions, insight and healing can result.

  Natalie Rogers (2000) acknowledged the influence of Jungian ideas for her person-centred arts therapy. There is striking use of Jung’s principles and ‘play’ in Japan, where Hakoniwa or sand tray therapy is a predominant influence in the work of analysts. This involves using miniatures to represent dynamics and archetypal influences, to help amplify and acknowledge these (Rogers-Mitchell and Friedman, 1994).

  ‘Integrative Jungian’ practice

  An emerging ‘integrative’ strand of post-Jungian practice, and even theory, reflects wider developments in the counselling and psychotherapy field, and there has been a growing move towards integrative models of psychotherapy in the past 30 or more years. Effective therapy across modalities tends to have the same hallmarks: a good-quality therapeutic relationship and a client/patient who is motivated to engage in the process (Cooper, 2008). This has gone alongside efforts by practitioner–theorists to establish ways of working and thinking, which draw together complementary elements of differing approaches to generate something more holistically effective (Norcross and Goldfried, 2003).

  An example of this is cognitive analytic therapy (or CAT; Ryle, 1975), which combines the emphasis from object relations on early unconscious influences with a cognitive approach based on CBT. There are also approaches utilizing different aspects of the therapeutic relationship, for example Clarkson (2003).

  Could there therefore be an integrative Jungian approach that enables other influences to be present in analysis/therapy while the Jungian flavour remains central? If so, would this be a step too far in diluting the essential qualities unique to a Jungian approach? Samuels (1985, pp. 9–10) argues:

  ‘A list of the ways in which post-Jungian analytical psychology is in tune with various developments in psychoanalysis suggests that not only is Jung in the therapeutic mainstream but that there is a sense in which analysis and psychotherapy today are in fact “Jungian”. We really need a new category: the unknowing Jungians.’

  His list includes:

  • the clinical use of countertransference, which Jung advocated

  • the central role of the self in human development – found in the work of Winnicott (1960) and Kohut (2009)

  • the extension of analytic interest to the second half of life – found in Erikson’s (1950) psychoanalytic ‘life stages’

  • the idea that unresolved parental issues can be expressed in psychological problems for children – an established principle in family therapy (Gammer, 2009).

  These points are not made to imply that Jung somehow secretly influenced many significant developments in psychotherapy but, rather, that a Jungian frame of mind is naturally present in the way many psychotherapists practise.

  As already mentioned when discussing developmental Jungians, their approach is strongly influenced by psychodynamic thinking, and this can be seen as an ‘integration’ of Jungian and psychodynamic principles and practice. This approach balances amplification of symbolism with intensive transference– countertransference work as early influences are reactivated. This is now a common approach among many Jungian practitioners and training institutions.

  This bears the hallmarks of a successful therapy integration where, rather than an eclectic ‘pick and mix’ of therapeutic tools, fundamental principles blend together well to provide a fuller array of possibilities in the therapeutic process (Norcross and Goldfried, 2005). The metaphor offered by Dunn (2002, p. 266) helps to convey what is meant by meaningful psychotherapeutic integration: ‘ideas are seen as being like flour and yeast in the making of bread and not…as the oil and vinegar in salad dressing which may be shaken together but in reality do not mix’.

  The blend of Jungian and object relations approaches reflects this principle. This has been further reinforced by the influence of relational psychoanalysis, a development originating in the US that prioritizes the significance of the relationship in the analytic encounter (Mitchell, 1988), and also takes into account social constructivist accounts of how we structure realities and make meaning. This involves drawing on feminist and postmodern ideas which challenge essentialist ideas, for example around gender and being a man or a woman (Harris, 2005). These sorts of questions sit well with Jung’s fluid approach to interplay between different factors in psyche’s life.

  Finally, another example of a valued integration involves where the Jungian approach meets the Humanistic psychotherapy and counselling tradition. There is much commonality between the philosophical and attitudinal stance of ‘the Two Carl’s’ (Thorne, 2012) – Jung and Carl Rogers (1902–1987), who founded the person-centred approach to counselling. Both identified a fundamental tendency towards growth in the psyche: individuation for Jung, and the self-actualizing tendency for Rogers (1967). As Purton (1989) observes, they both take a stance which values the basic trustworthiness of the client/analysand, though perhaps not in quite the same way.

  While Rogers emphasizes the natural tendency of the client to know what is best for them, by fostering their internal locus of evaluation (not deferring to the judgements of others about what is ‘best’ for them), Jung prioritizes the importance of allowing the psyche of the analysand to indicate the direction in which the analysis needs to unfold. This can often be through noticing what compensatory messages from the unconscious (via dreams, etc.) indicate. Likewise, Jung’s emphasis on the importance of getting behind the persona corresponds with Rogers’ focus on helping clients dissolve ‘conditions of worth’ (Merry, 2002).

  Where Thorne and Purton acknowledge differences, they also point out that these can be seen as complementary rather than problematic. A key example would be Jung’s ‘map’ of the unconscious, arguing that this should add to the depth and quality of a person-centred approach. As Purton (1989, p. 411) puts it:

  ‘I see this Jungian person-centred therapy as grounded in the Rogerian conditions of empathy, acceptance, and congruence. The additional element from the Jungian tradition is the attitude that I call “openness to the unconscious.” Jungian theory comes into the picture only by way of giving some conception of what it is to which we are being open.’

  There are also differences in emphasis found in therapy. A Jungian approach, for example, emphasizes how important shadow work is in promoting individuation, compared to the priority to fulfil potential in Rogers’ use of Maslow’s (2014) notion of ‘self-actualization’. Also, Jungian use of a psychoanalytically influenced reading of unconscious process, and work with complexes that are difficult to shift, might bring differing stances on therapeutic process and relationship.

  However, even here there is commonality. In terms of Jung’s emphasis on the need for the analyst to put themselves fully into the process, work in the transference–countertransference (including archetypal) can be compared to the person-centred notion of working at relational depth (Mearns and Cooper, 2005). Although there are limited examples of syntheses between Jungian and person-centred perspectives (e.g. in Gubi, 2015), there is clearly potential for further practice and thinking towards integrating aspects of the two approaches.

  Spotlight: A Humanistic and Jungian conference

  The interest in developing fuller links between Humanistic and Jungian perspectives was demonstrated by the popular conference on this theme in London, October 2014. This event included a dialogue between Andrew Samuels (Jungian) and Brian Thorne (Humanistic) on the commonalities between the two approaches.

  These developments also reflect a growing responsiveness to the demand for shorter-term therapeutic work rather than long-term, intensive analysis (which can often be too expensive and time-consuming for potential analysands). Here, analysts may adapt their approach to work with underlying influences on pressing ‘here-and-now’ issues in, say, only six or eight sessions, recognizing the limitations inherent in this but still enabling valuable gains to be made for the analysand. Contempo
rary Jungian analytic practice can therefore involve a combination of traditional lengthy analysis with some analysands, while offering this more targeted short-term approach to others.

  A therapeutic integration to meet Jolanta’s needs

  As the analysis progressed and deepened, Jolanta’s analyst became more aware of how deeply this work was affecting her. Liz regularly experienced feelings of anxiety and pressure in her countertransference, and wondered where these might be coming from. She explored this with her supervisor, and it became clearer how Jolanta’s anxiety and uncertainty about relationships was coming through in the therapist’s countertransference. She was picking up, in her feelings and bodily sensations, the presence of Jolanta’s difficult feelings, which seemed to connect with what Jolanta had said about her relationship with her parents. Here, there had been a pattern of her trying to please her parents, especially her father, who Jolanta said had had very high expectations of his daughter.

  Feelings of inadequacy and a difficulty in trusting her relationships had clearly fed into Jolanta’s difficulties as an adult with establishing and maintaining close relationships. Her therapist found herself focusing on these transferential dynamics as well as deepening the relationship between Jolanta and her, in order to provide a reparative experience of relationship in which Jolanta could share her deeper fears, as well as hopes, about relationships.

  Her therapist became the ‘good object’ (in psychodynamic terms), providing what Jolanta had not properly experienced as a child. She also drew on a person-centred emphasis on providing a warm and authentic presence, which enabled Jolanta to notice the way she ‘needed approval’, and then foster her capacity to express her fundamental needs and build up a positive self-concept and allow her ‘conditions of worth’ to dissolve. From a Jungian perspective, work with dream material had helped her analyst understand this dimension of the work – the dreams about the airport and being on a ‘pilotless plane’ (Chapter 13) in particular reflected Jolanta’s lack of secure and grounded relationships as a child, generating a complex about disconnectedness from relationship/home. The combination of psychodynamic person-centred and Jungian elements helped the therapist facilitate an effective approach to tackle this.