Erich Neumann and Jungian Psychology

I think that Jungian theory deserves respect but that Jungians themselves need to loosen, de-dogmatise and so on. Some of the issues are unresolved outside of Jungian psychology and I think that they are therefore - - - unresolved per se. They are issues concerning human nature verses nurture, mental objectivity verses free will and so on. Many of the most intelligent scientists search for answers here in genetics. Jungians who claim that archetypes are hardwired are guessing. Of course everything derives from the psyche. However, anything can be anything if using that as an argument for archetypes. I can easily imagine people preferring to believe that our minds are objective. However I can also easily imagine the opposite. (pro subjectivity/free will positions).
It could be that there are archetypes but there is no physical evidence for it like there is genetics. And there is no evidence that culture is not primary. Nor is there anything to disprove that humans find themselves in similar environmental circumstances that make similar responses inevitable. However human responses are not identical, not robotic and therefore this is an important argument against hardwiring. It suggests a loosening of the hardwired talk would be a prerequisite for those outside of the field to take Jungian theory seriously. Even Sonu Shamdasani seems to suggest that openness concerning Jung's work was what Jung hoped for. And then an interdisciplinary approach whereby psychological studies contributed to knowledge rather than acting in an insular manner. However, I think that some Jungians wish to establish the fields hard scientific (dogmatic?) credentials more like Erich Neumann did. However I am only making an educated guess here... and I plan to survey those working within the field on this very question. Did Neumann succeed in placing Jungian theory on firm developmental scientific footing? I am not looking for answers right away but I would be pleased to get replies saying that if I go ahead with this work they would be willing to write a 250 - 500 word case for or against Neumann's attempt. I hope that it will turn out to be a document that people could point to concerning where the Jungian community places itself with regard to what I regard as Neumanns important piece of work; i.e. important irrespective of whether I or anyone else agrees with it.
Paul.

You need to be a member of Depth Psychology Alliance to add comments!

Join Depth Psychology Alliance

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Hi Paul,

     

    What a healthy post. It becomes so easy once we are a "group" to withdraw our questioning, not voice doubts or other ways of perceiving. What particular Neumann work are you referring to? Or are you referring to the body of work? And, when are you imagining you would need the work completed? I am seriously considering raising my hand to contribute, though need a time frame.

    • Jung/Neumann

       

      Colleen,

      I have decided to be flexible on time-frame. Therefore if I got a couple dozen articles over the next few days I would proceed in putting a document together at the start of next week. However, those who wanted to write something say in a week or two or three weeks... could do so... and then I would put a second document together in a few weeks time.

      Will you be putting a piece together over the next few days or over the next few weeks?

       

      Also, if you have any other questions then (of course) feel free to ask.

       

      Thanks again,

       

      Paul.

      • Hi Paul,

         

        I have a heavy schedule these next two weeks, so the option is great. I will forward something on about the 10th of February.

         

        Best,

        Colleen

        • Colleen

          When you do write your article simply include a mini note on the contributor in the following way (e.g. John Smith is a member of the International Association for Jungian Studies and works as an analyst in New York.)

           

          Thanks again,

           

          Paul.

    • Dear Colleen

       

      I will have to get back to you on a time-frame. Here is my official message that I am sending everyone.

       

      I am aiming to discover the general attitude within the Jungian community towards Erich Neumann's The Origins and History of Consciousness. As you will know, Neumann tried to establish Jungian theory on a developmental scientific footing... a genuine scientific status. This strikes some Jungians as being entirely justified and others as turning Jung's work into a dogma. This mirrors a general feeling within the Jungian community with some regarding the field as being exactly as they like it and others thinking that it is too closed and insular... talking to itself. Therefore I am hoping to question 50 or so people who work within the field concerning their attitude towards Neumanns project. And it will therefore be a shared enterprise with the finished product in-effect multi-authored. I plan on each contributor writing a 250 - 500 word (excluding referencing) case for or against whether Neumann succeeded in his attempt to place Jungian theory on developmental scientific grounds and whether he was right or wrong to even try to do so. I will not just ask anyone who declares an interest in the question. Contributors must be able to prove that they are linked in some way to the Jungian community. However I have heard of 99% of the contributors that I am contacting hence they will (overwhelmingly) be obvious candidates due to being authors of Jungian/post-Jungian books. And I want the finished product to be a shared (Jungian community) result meaning that the publication will be free for any contributor to publish on their website making it a credible source for referencing. 


       


      In an attempt to find 50 contributors I will be initially contacting yourself and the following:


       


      Roderick Main


      Tony Woolfson

       

      Bonnie Bright


      Linda Carter


      Peter Dunlap


      Murray Stein


      Mario Jacoby


      Andrew Samuels


      Stephen A. Diamond


      Nancy Krieger


      Daniel Anderson


      Susan E. Schwartz


      John R. Haule


      Gottfried Heuer


      Malcolm Davy Barnes


      Tessa Adams


      Paul Bishop


      Ann Shearer


      Paula A. Monahan


      Renos Papadopoulos


      Susan Rowland


      Don Federicksen


      Mark Saban


      Robert Segal


      Leslie Gardner


      Daniel Anderson


      Gwynne Mayer


      Stephen A. Diamond


      John R. Haule


      Warren Coleman


      Inez Martinez


      Don Fefericksen


      Bob Koettel


      Alexandra Fidyk


      Matthew Fike


      Robert Mitchell


      Hyoin Park


      Marie-Madeline Stey


      Rinda West


      Joe Cambray


      Anthony L. Pena


      Ed Koffenberger


      Mark Edward Armen


      Daniel Anderson


      David Tacey


      Allan Guggenbuhl


      Patricia Berry


      Robert J. Bosnak


      Pamela Donleavy


      Seth I. Rubin


      Patricia Vesey-McGrew


      Rainer Maria kohler


      Richard L. Kradin


      David Lindorff


      Paola Biola


      Susan Mckenzie


      J. Randall Mishoe


      Maggie Bromell


      Susan Morgan


      Barbara E. Bronson


      Ann W. Norton


      Nina H. Patterson


      Jane Davenport Platko


      Kathryn Contini


      Jane R. Pretat


      Ann Back Price


      Manisha Roy


      Warrern H. Erickson


      Will Furber


      Paul D. Sanderson


      James Scherer


      Ethne Gray


      Ira Sharkey


      Anita Greene


      Stuart J. Sherman


      Brian Skea


      Deborah W. Gregory


      Donna V. Haas


      Karen A. Smyers


      Sarah Halford


       


      My planned contribution to this email. (below) 


       


      PERSPECTIVES ON JUNG’S WORK

      Carl Jung’s work divides the Jungian community among itself. There’s even a book out titled “Who owns Jung?”1and the historian of psychology, Sonu Shamdasani believes that most Jungian writers misinterpret Jung.2 Shamdasani’s view is that Jung asked the right questions3 but that the answers would only be attained through an interdisciplinary enterprise concerning the numerous fields of knowledge.4 Thus Shamdasani’s vision is not one of a Jungian school competing within a world of multi psychologies but rather of a single psychology with Jung’s work equating to a positive contributor.    


      Erich Neumann regarded Jung’s work as complete. He thought that he (himself) could organise it into a neat whole thus clarifying and systematising it within a developmental framework.5 Thus Jungian psychology would be given “scientific underpinning”.6 Hence Jungian psychology (for Neumann) attains the grand status of standing for ‘Psychology’ per se. Shamdasani and Neumann then, possess different perspectives on Jung. For me, Neumann was dogmatising Jung’s work and/or merely in subjective agreement with it.


      Wolfgang Giegerich offers yet another perspective.7 Giegerich regards Jung’s collective work as obsolete due to its pre-modern emphasis on soulfulness that is tied in with ancient myth, alchemy and so forth. Giegerich argues that due to this dated collective side to Jung’s work; Jung’s psychology also fails for modern individuals... because it does not speak for them.


      My own view is one of regarding Jung’s work as prima materia for the individual to sift through and help him or her make sense of life and the world. The desired result = psychological health. This is done within the context of facing up to life as much as the individual can... as opposed to hiding from the world. Culture will influence decisions that the individual makes (i.e., in relation to working on Jung’s work) because humans are social cultural beings.


      Meanwhile I do not rubber-stamp Jung’s work at the collective level. My perspective on the collective relevance of Jung’s work is as follows... progress in collective knowledge (derived from one individual or group) is hard to come by; knowledge is hard won. So much Jungian rhetoric in this area is precisely that, i.e., ‘rhetoric’. (Speaking to highly of itself to itself.) Technological science is progressing at a fast rate and some of Jung’s hunches may prove to be true. We will see. And of course, Jung’s work is not dependent solely on validation from hard science as it can speak about typical individual complexes and archetypal emotions within an environmental cultural context. But in doing so it should not try and claim to be superior to hard science, nor speak as if it were hard science itself.


      For or Against Neumann’s perspective on Jung’s work?


      Against.


       


      Notes


      1. Casement, A, 2007


      2. Personal correspondence. See also Shamdasani, S, 2004


      3. Personal correspondence


      4. Shamdasani, S, 2004


      5. Neumann, E, 1995  


      6. Segal, R, in Jung, C, 1998


      7. Giegerich, W, 2004


       


      References


      Casement, A, (2007) Who Owns Jung? (Karnac)


      Giegerich, W, (2004) The End of Meaning and the Birth of Man: An Essay about the State Reached in the History of Consciousness and an Analysis of C. G. Jung’s Psychological Project (Vol. 6, No. 1: Journal of Jungian Theory and Practice)


      Jung, C, (1998) Jung on Mythology (Edited by Segal, R) (Routledge)


      Neumann, E, (1995) The Origins and History of Consciousness (Princeton University Press)


      Shamdasani, S, (2004) Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology: The Dream of a Science (Cambridge University Press)


      Best Wishes,


      Paul Budding.


       


This reply was deleted.