Ellert Nijenhuis (whose field is Dissociation Psychology) writes that
Jung's "position" on Dissociation "turns a host of mental phenomena and practically all psychopathology in the domain of dissociation, turning the concept so broad that it loses scientific and clinical value." However my position is with Jung on this one. Because we can talk of "Relative" or "Neurotic" Dissociation... and "Absolute" or "Psychotic" Dissociation. However, I do not like considering "Day-Dreaming" as Dissociation but I am 90% with Jung on this one. Nevertheless, I am wondering if any of you have any thoughts on this? Maybe you think its an interesting topic. I am happy to send you a paper I edited (Selected writings from Jung and others).
Paul.
Replies
Sorry I haven't responded faster to this invitation and there are several psychiatrists within the Alliance who may want to respond who have more experience in this area. I guess I have always seen any mental "illness" on a continuum. This, of course, means that either we are capable of psychological wholeness or that such a state may be considered an illness of the other extreme. I actually read Nijenhuis' comment as a complement to Jung. It keeps the personhood primary rather than turning the person into a diagnosis. I do disagree that such an opening loses the clinical value of terms such as dissociation. I think it personalizes the individual in the eyes of the mental health practitioner. Indeed, dseeing another person as a (fill in the diagnosis) is a form of social dissociation. I would enjoy viewing the paper.
Thanks for responding Ed. Its a paper that I edited taking selected extracts from Jung et al. You can download it for free from http://www.docstoc.com/profile/paulbudds
Its definitely not a 'feel good' (nor even 'feel neutral') paper. This is because the extracts are 99% concerning negative complexes and dissociation. Hence the paper needs a follow-up which I am working on.
Paul.