Andrew Samuels Jungian Schools are very clarifying. Classical/Developmental/Archetypal (he now integrates the Archetypalists into the Classical School and adds Fundamentalist wings of the Classical and Developmental Schools. But he strangely misses out Giegerich who has surely established a new school... perhaps called the "Logic School".
Anyone got an opinion on why Samuels hasnt added Giegerich? Giegerich himself says that:
"Just as Hillman went beyond Jung in some regards, so I went beyond Hillman in some regards. But of course, others may not think that my move is a third moment (i.e., step, move, stage) in the historical development of the thought of Analytical Psychology beyond the one Hillman performed, but rather an alternative side by side with Hillman's move. This is not how I see it. At any rate, my move has to do with transcending the imaginal approach in the direction of a thinking in terms of the soul's logical life". (Wolfgang Giegerich)
I'm also surprised that he thinks that the Archetypalists and Classical School are one and the same thing. Hillman didnt believe in individuation and he rejected the Self Archetype and ignored the relevance of the ego and didnt think anything of consciousness. I quite simply do not understand Samuels move here. When I look online I see more hostility from archetypalists to the classical school than I do from the developmental school. Vannoy Adams distinguishes himself from the Classical School, Hillman himself always did so too. And if you re-read the Giegerich quote above you will see that he starts off by referring to Hillmans distingusihing his ideas froms Jung's. (hence distinguished from the Classical School).
My following idea is vague and not I'm not particuarly confident that it will connect with anyone much. However that means that I am very open to the following idea being modified and improved. My idea is that Samuels schools can be expanded not only by adding a Giegerich school but also by adding more information.For example we start off with Classical/Archetypal/Developmental/Logic Schools (at least we do so if we ignore Samuels inclusion of the Archetypal School within the Classical... and we add the Logic School). Then theres another set of categories, e.g. Literature/Scientific/Religious/Social Cultural/Psychotherapy. The Post-Jungian would then select say, Classical and Literature or Developmental and Psychotherapy. I guess my idea is flawed somehow... arent all Developmentalists primarily concerned with psychotherapy? I'm not sure. Nevertheless I would also be surprised if more categorizing couldnt be done and I stand by my original claims about adding Giegerich and not just melting the Archeypal School into the Classical School.
Thoughts anyone?
Replies