Carl Jung’s writings continue to fascinate students of humanity. Despite its subjec- tive and philosophical quality, Jungian psychology has attracted a wide audience of both professional and lay people. His study of religion and mythology may resonate with some readers but repel others. Jung, however, regarded himself as a scientist and insisted that his scientific study of religion, mythology, folklore, and philosoph- ical fantasies did not make him a mystic any more than Freud’s study of sex made Freud a sexual pervert (Jung, 1975).
Nevertheless, analytical psychology, like any theory, must be evaluated against the six criteria of a useful theory established in Chapter 1. First, a useful theory must generate testable hypothesesand descriptive research,and second, it must have the capacity for either verification or falsification. Unfortunately, Jung’s theory, like Freud’s, is nearly impossible to either verify or falsify. The collective unconscious, the core of Jung’s theory, remains a difficult concept to test empirically.
Much of the evidence for the concepts of archetype and the collective uncon- scious has come from Jung’s own inner experiences, which he admittedly found dif- ficult to communicate to others, so that acceptance of these concepts rests more on faith than on empirical evidence. Jung (1961) claimed that “archetypal statements are based upon instinctive preconditions and have nothing to do with reason; they are neither rationally grounded nor can they be banished by rational argument” (p. 353).
Such a statement may be acceptable to the artist or the theologian, but it is not likely to win adherents among scientific researchers faced with the problems of designing studies and formulating hypotheses.
On the other hand, that part of Jung’s theory concerned with classification and typology, that is, the functions and attitudes, can be studied and tested and have gen- erated a moderate amount of research.Because the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has yielded a great number of investigations, we give Jung’s theory a moderate rating on its ability to generate research.
Third, a useful theory should organize observationsinto a meaningful frame- work. Analytical psychology is unique because it adds a new dimension to personal- ity theory, namely, the collective unconscious. Those aspects of human personality dealing with the occult, the mysterious, and the parapsychological are not touched on by most other personality theories. Even though the collective unconscious is not the only possible explanation for these phenomena, and other concepts could be
Concept of Humanity
Jung saw humans as complex beings with many opposing poles. His view of hu- manity was neither pessimistic nor optimistic, neither deterministic nor purposive.
To him, people are motivated partly by consciousthoughts, partly by images from their personal unconscious, and partly by latent memory traces inherited from their ancestral past. Their motivation comes from both causal and teleological factors.
The complex makeup of humans invalidates any simple or one-sided descrip- tion. According to Jung, each person is a composition of opposing forces. No one is completely introverted or totally extraverted; all male or all female; solely a postulated to account for them, Jung is the only modern personality theorist to make a serious attempt to include such a broad scope of human activity within a single the- oretical framework. For these reasons, we have given Jung’s theory a moderate rat- ing on its ability to organize knowledge.
A fourth criterion of a useful theory is its practicality. Does the theory aid therapists, teachers, parents, or others in solving everyday problems? The theory of psychological types or attitudes and the MBTI are used by many clinicians, but the usefulness of most analytical psychology is limited to those therapists who subscribe to basic Jungian tenets. The concept of a collective unconscious does not easily lend itself to empirical research, but it may have some usefulness in helping people un- derstand cultural myths and adjust to life’s traumas. Overall, however, we can give Jung’s theory only a low rating in practicality.
Is Jung’s theory of personality internally consistent?Does it possess a set of operationally defined terms? The first question receives a qualified affirmative an- swer; the second, a definite negative one. Jung generally used the same terms con- sistently, but he often employed several terms to describe the same concept. The words regressionand introvertedare so closely related that they can be said to de- scribe the same process. This is also true of progressionand extraverted,and the list could be expanded to include several other terms such as individuation and self- realization,which also are not clearly differentiated. Jung’s language is often arcane, and many of his terms are not adequately defined. As for operational definitions, Jung, like other early personality theorists, did not define terms operationally. There- fore, we rate his theory as low on internal consistency.
The final criterion of a useful theory is parsimony. Jung’s psychology is not simple, but neither is human personality. However, because it is more cumbersome than necessary, we can give it only a low rating on parsimony. Jung’s proclivity for searching for data from a variety of disciplines and his willingness to explore his own unconscious, even beneath the personal level, contribute to the great complexi- ties and the broad scope of his theory. The law of parsimony states, “When two the- ories are equally useful, the simpler one is preferred.” In fact, of course, no two are ever equal, but Jung’s theory, while adding a dimension to human personality not greatly dealt with by others, is probably more complex than necessary.
Key Terms and Concepts
• The personal unconsciousis formed by the repressed experiences of one particular individual and is the reservoir of the complexes.
• Humans inherit a collective unconsciousthat helps shape many of their attitudes, behaviors, and dreams.
• Archetypesare contents of the collective unconscious. Typical archetypes include persona, shadow, anima, animus, great mother, wise old man, hero, and self.
• The personarepresents the side of personality that people show to the rest of the world. Psychologically healthy people recognize their persona but do not mistake it for the whole of personality.
thinking, feeling, sensing, or intuitive person; and no one proceeds invariably in the direction of either progression or regression.
The persona is but a fraction of an individual. What one wishes to show oth- ers is usually only the socially acceptable side of personality. Every person has a dark side, a shadow, and most try to conceal it from both society and themselves.
In addition, each man possesses an anima and every woman an animus.
The various complexes and archetypes cast their spell over people and are re- sponsible for many of their words and actions and most of their dreams and fan- tasies. Although people are not masters in their own houses, neither are they com- pletely dominated by forces beyond their control. People have some limited capacity to determine their lives. Through strong will and with great courage, they can explore the hidden recesses of their psyche. They can recognize their shadow as their own, become partially conscious of their feminine or masculine side, and cultivate more than a single function. This process, which Jung called individua- tion or self-realization, is not easy and demands more fortitude than most people can muster. Ordinarily, a person who has achieved self-realization has reached mid- dle life and has lived successfully through the stages of childhood and youth. Dur- ing middle age, they must be willing to set aside the goals and behaviors of youth and adopt a new style appropriate to their stage of psychic development.
Even after people have achieved individuation, made an acquaintance with their inner world, and brought the various opposing forces into balance, they re- main under the influence of an impersonal collective unconscious that controls many of their prejudices, interests, fears, dreams, and creative activities.
On the dimension of biological versus social aspects of personality, Jung’s theory leans strongly in the direction of biology. The collective unconscious, which is responsible for so many actions, is part of our biological inheritance. Except for the therapeutic potential of the doctor-patient relationship, Jung had little to say about differential effects of specific social practices. In fact, in his studies of var- ious cultures, he found the differences to be superficial, the similarities profound.
Thus, analytical psychology can also be rated high on similaritiesamong people and low on individual differences.
• The animais the feminine side of men and is responsible for many of their irrational moods and feelings.
• The animus,the masculine side of women, is responsible for irrational thinking and illogical opinions in women.
• The great motheris the archetype of fertility and destruction.
• The wise old manarchetype is the intelligent but deceptive voice of accumulated experience.
• The herois the unconscious image of a person who conquers an evil foe but who also has a tragic flaw.
• The selfis the archetype of completeness, wholeness, and perfection.
• The two attitudes of introversionand extraversioncan combine with any one or more of the four functions—thinking, feeling, sensation,and intuition—to produce eight basic types.
• A healthy middle lifeand old agedepend on proper solutions to the problems of childhoodand youth.
• Jungian therapists use dream analysisand active imagination to discover the contents of patients’ collective unconscious.
Klein: Object
Relations Theory
BOverview of Object Relations Theory BBiography of Melanie Klein
BIntroduction to Object Relations Theory BPsychic Life of the Infant
Phantasies Objects BPositions
Paranoid-Schizoid Position Depressive Position
BPsychic Defense Mechanisms Introjection
Projection Splitting
Projective Identification BInternalizations
Ego Superego
Oedipus Complex
Female Oedipal Development Male Oedipal Development BLater Views on Object Relations
Margaret Mahler’s View Heinz Kohut’s View
John Bowlby’s Attachment Theory Mary Ainsworth and the Strange Situation
Klein
135
C H A P T E R 5
BPsychotherapy BRelated Research
Object Relations and Eating Disorders Attachment Theory and Adult Relationships BCritique of Object Relations Theory BConcept of Humanity
BKey Terms and Concepts
M
elanie Klein, the woman who developed a theory that emphasized the nurtur- ing and loving relationship between parent and child, had neither a nurturant nor a loving relationship to her own daughter Melitta. The rift between mother and daughter began early. Melitta was the oldest of three children born to parents who did not particularly like one another. When Melitta was 15, her parents separated, and Melitta blamed her mother for this separation and for the divorce that followed.As Melitta matured, her relationship with her mother became more acrimonious.
After Melitta received a medical degree, underwent a personal analysis, and presented scholarly papers to the British Psycho-Analytical Society, she was offi- cially a member of that society, professionally equal to her mother.
Her analyst, Edward Glover, was a bitter rival of Melanie Klein. Glover, who encouraged Melitta’s independence, was at least indirectly responsible for Melitta’s virulent attacks on her mother. The animosity between mother and daughter became even more intense when Melitta married Walter Schmideberg, another analyst who strongly opposed Klein and who openly supported Anna Freud, Klein’s most bitter rival.
Despite being a full member of the British Psycho-Analytical Society, Melitta Schmideberg felt that her mother saw her as an appendage, not a colleague. In a strongly worded letter to her mother in the summer of 1934, Melitta wrote:
I hope you will . . . also allow me to give you some advice. . . . I am very different from you. I already told you years ago that nothing causes a worse reaction in me than trying to force feelings into me—it is the surest way to kill all feelings. . . . I am now grown up and must be independent. I have my own life, my husband.
(quoted in Grosskurth, 1986, p. 199.)
Melitta went on to say that she would no longer relate to her mother in the neurotic manner of her younger years. She now had a shared profession with her mother and insisted that she be treated as an equal.
The story of Melanie Klein and her daughter takes on a new perspective in light of the emphasis that object relations theory places on the importance of the mother-child relationship.