Jungian analysts step into critical minefield

SCHOLARS interested in Carl Jung's ideas and Jungian analysts have, for many years, been highly critical of many of Jung's theories, attitudes and actions. You could say there has been an experiment in learning how to renew and revitalise a field from within.

For example, Jung's anti-semitism has been written about by me and others in "Jungian" journals. Conferences have been held on the theme and the need for reparation has been recognised and acted on.

I had hoped Richard Noll's decision to give up the idea of becoming a Jungian analyst would lead him to join the relatively new field of critical Jungian studies (THES, November 22) Instead, he has made claims that should be treated with caution. Very few believe in the collective unconscious as a pool of inherited images any more. What we have learned about cultural transmission has led to a rethink. Theorising about archetypes is useful in an exploration of whether it is possible to make universal and generalising statements in human psychology at all.

The fact that the "Solar Phallus Man" knew about Mithraic imagery is simply not new. Nor is the supposed revelation that he was not Jung's patient - this is mentioned in the editorial apparatus to Jung's Collected Works.

Of course, we have our problems with some colleagues for whom Jung can have done no wrong. But the overall atmosphere in Jungian circles today - clinical and academic - is increasingly critical, sceptical and scholarly.

ANDREW SAMUELS Professor, analytical psychology, University of Essex.