I have enjoyed many of the discussions here, especially those that have contributed a more critical spirit to the approach of Jungian psychology. So far, however, I have not encountered any reference to the work of Wolfgang Giegerich, a Jungian analyst who above all must be credited with the introduction of a more rigorous critical approach to Jungian psychology, a dialectical "Hegelian" spirit of analysis, which does run counter the devotional or dogmatic Jugianism that has clustered around analytical psychology over the decades. It is for this reason, because Jung's work is threatened to become a pop-culture ideology (via Campbell), that a critical approach such as Giegerich offers seems indispensable to the further development of Jungian theory. For whereas devotional Jungians want to worship his theory where Jung left it 70 years ago, critical Jungians such as Hillman and Giegerich are working to further develop its critical frontiers beyond the isms of Jung's time and ours.
Has anybody else in this "alliance" had the critical experience of Giegerich's work? Or is Giegerich's voice, like my own voice often sounds among official card-carrying "Jungians," condemned to be the voice that cries from the wilderness of the archetypal psyche?
Replies
Thank you everybody for contributing to this discussion. It is obvious that Giegerich remains relatively unknown to this alliance and not very well understood, especially if all we have to go by is the article on END OF MEANING & THE BIRTH OF MAN. Jungians are so addicted to Meaning and have used Jungian psychology as a way to maintain this addiction rather than moving THROUGH it, or "seeing through" as Hillman would have it, that they simply can't stomach the basic thesis of that essay: the search of Meaning is the opposite of itself, a way to drain meaning from ordinary experience. But if people find Giegerich's sharp criticism of Jungian psychology, not as a whole but very specifically IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROJECT OF MEANING, they should remember that Joseph Campbell too would have agreed with Giegerich, if anybody cares to read his essay on SYMBOL WITHOUT MEANING. Campbell also expressed this insight on National Television when Bill Moyers asked him if he thought people were really starving for meaning, to which Campbell replied, "I don't think people are looking for meaning; they are looking for an EXPERIENCE.
Indeed, this popular Quest for Meaning IS the opposite of itself. Imagine standing in front of a great painting, piece of music, or poetry, and being open to the EXPERIENCE that the artist wanted you to have. What would happen the minute you asked: "but what does it mean?" What happens the minute you do that? Campbell also said that there is no more stupid question you can ask of a work of art than "bt what does it mean?" Campbell said that if the artist thought you were an asshole or wanted to insult you, THEN he would tell you "what it means." Because the minute you ask this stupid question you have taken yourself OUT of the experience and do the very thing naive and uncomprehending critics of Giegerich say about him: they go up into their "head" and start a cerebral game with words to answer the question "but what does it mean?" But there is no buts when it comes to the transcendent experience of art. It is what it is, artists will tell you, it means no-thing, or whatever YOU want it to mean.
Once again, although so-called Jungians are addicted to Meaning, this is not the real purpose of his depth psychology. So the belief that Giegerich has rejected Jung with this addiction only shows the easy pop-culture [non]understanding people have of "Mother Jung" as this great "Giver of Meaning."
It is just because this quest for Meaning is the opposite of itself that the Buddha refused engaging in metaphysical speculation. Ask a Zen-Buddhist what is the meaning of life and she may just pick up a flower and have you smell it. Giegerich's basic position with this question is basically a Zen one and more authentically "Jungian", a fact which has been understood by a few highly intelligent analysts. For example, John Beebe's response to the article:
"I am appreciative that Wolfgang Giegerich, with his keen, philosophically
trained mind, has offered us such an intelligent critique of Jung’s psychology. I feel
it to be as important, and as timely, as Jung’s critique of psychoanalysis was in 1913.
Just as Jungian psychotherapists who elected to go on with their version of psychoanalysis had to take the critique Jung offered of the Freudian school seriously,
contemporary Jungian psychotherapists must really try to integrate the insights
offered by Giegerich if they are to be conscious of the intellectual and emotional
choices they have made in attempting to carry a Jungian depth psychology forward.
This is not to say, as a certain reading of Giegerich’s sometime polemic might
dictate, that the practice of Jungian analysis has lost its raison d’être and can only
henceforward be an anachronism. Rather, it’s to admit that those of us who want to
go on being Jungians can no longer hide behind notions of the unconscious and of
the eternal verities encoded as archetypes to avoid looking at the conditions under
which such theoretical magic boxes became necessary and the problems Jung was
attempting to solve by offering such intellectual gambits to us. As I understand Dr.
Giegerich’s argument, he is saying that the promise of ‘meaning’ implicit in the
Jungian project of embracing and learning from the unconscious conceals the wish
to be let off the hook of threatening aspects of the modern condition that in fact are
not susceptible to alteration, even by this alchemical stratagem.”
In response to some of the replies... I'm not sure that you can choose to be equally pro Jung and pro Giegerich. My reading of Giegerich's "End of Meaning" Essay is that Giegerich worked through Jung. (Went beyond Jung). In brief I think that Giegerich opts for conscious thinking and rejects the depth so crucial to Classical Jungians. For me Giegerich rejects the Unconscious. He rejects Meaning in the myth, traditional religion sense. His "End of Meaning" refers to the scientific revolution which brought about the likes of Jung, spiritualists, existential philosophers who tried to compensate for that. I am broadly on Jung's side especially as technological science is turning science into a more positive phenomenon. In the 1700s, 1800s and even the 1900s it couldnt promise salvation. But with exponential growth in technological progress it holds out the promise of real progress and results in medical science. Hence meaning can be poured into new bottles. Moreover on the Jung/Giegerich debate I advise making your decision based on HEALTH. That is a legitimate way for people in psychology to decide issues. Bodily medical puzzles require the same. What makes you healthy? If alittle Giegerich issue raising hits a complex then maybe you need to move on in the Giegerich direction. But if Giegerich 'genuinely' fails completely to move you... then he does not speak to you at all. I started by saying that you cant be equally pro Giegerich and pro Jung. I think that it is unlikely - - - especially if you already think enough. Some people need to think more than others to stay healthy.
Anyway, I HOPE that I have made some decent points.
Paul.
Put Simply:
Hillman stands for Unconscious feeling
Giegerich stands for Conscious thinking
Jung stands for Unconscious feeling and Conscious thinking
In general though I think that Jungians slant Jung towards feeling.
Paul.
Norland
Having spent a few moments more reflecting on your post I would like to say the following. Giegerich is good for those who identify too much with Jung and need a push. Indeed they may overidentify with something else and need to move on. Participation mystique can be very unhealthy for the modern. But Jung could argue that part of his psychology is about EXPLAINING peoples psychological experiences - whether they be healhty or unhealthy. Moreover not everyone needs to move on... some people (I am sure) are healthy as say, symbolic Catholics... wasnt Jolande Jacobi a Jungian Catholic? I straddle the boderland. I get you... I understand that you are pushing ahead, into conscious thinking and so on. (thinking through more than thinking about). But I also get and understand the more feeling orientated and more unconscious types. I refuse to amputate the latter but am also happy about the world of physics, technology and so on. After all medical science may save your life!
Paul.
Paul.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next