Can Psychology become a Science?
- Putting Jungianism on a pedestal.
- Jung - more prolific writer than Sigmund Freud.
- The problem of the possibility of psychology as a science.
- Part 1.
- Shamdasani discussion of the fact that there were and still are? many psychologies.
- The singularity of the term 'psychology'.
- Part 2.
- What Jung intended to establish and what he did not intend to establish.
- Jung and the establishment of general psychology.
- Where psychotherapy, as it stands, is helpful.
- Psychology - dis-united since its emergence as a field of knowledge.
The project being undertaken here is one of an investigation into the possibility of a psychological science from a Jungian perspective. The project will consist of a series of 3,000 ? 4,000 word essays (of which this is the first). The primary source used will be Sonu Shamdasani's Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology: The Dream of a Science.1
My project is not about putting Jungianism on a pedestal. Rather it is about investigating the possibility of establishing psychology as a science.
Serious disciplines need to be tested and can prosper or die in the market of ideas. Jungian psychology has survived for a long time because Carl Jung was such a huge thinker. He was an erudite, a prolific writer, able to correspond with leading thinkers from other disciplines in worlds of science, religion and other fields including of course his own, psychology. His vast knowledge gave him the confidence to attempt to establish psychology as a genuine science. The interdisciplinary approach meant that this attempt was not at all cultist. But in the present day, whilst there are some very bright thinkers in the world of Jungian analytical psychology, they appear to be contained within a Jungian enclave that no longer seeks to branch out. There is an assumption that Jung's ideas are known. The archetypes and the collective unconscious are discussed as if psychology had already established itself as a science. Jung's project for a psychological science is dead in the water because of these assumptions.
[...] Shamdasani writes ?Jung did not intend to form a particular school of psychotherapy, but in line with the unitary conceptions of psychology in the late nineteenth century, intended to establish psychology in general.?1 This was an encyclopedic endeavor. Shamdasani writes that Jung's signature concepts contained many ideas which attempted to resolve major debates in philosophy, psychology, sociology, biology, anthropology, comparative religion and other fields, and enable the formation of a distinct discipline of psychology. It is precisely this combinatory operation that gives his psychology its distinctive style and substance.?2 Where I diverge from Shamdasani and from the majority within Jungian psychology is on systematization. [...]
[...] Jung asked the right questions and he was an even more prolific writer than Sigmund Freud.2 Jung therefore established for second and third generation Jungian thinkers a basis from which to work from. But it is little more than that. In my project we are embarking on a quest, and lending support to Shamdasani's vision for Jungian analytical psychology, whereby Jung's ideas may or may not succeed depending on the quality or lack of quality regarding Jung's insights. Hence Jung (and his ideas) will be treated fairly. [...]
[...] There is no chance of my embarking on a real individuation journey, for I tell myself incessantly (and erroneously) that I am already as perfect as I can be?.6Haule then writes about the cure for such a mild neurotic personality. It is persuasion and education at its heart and is approved of by the author of this work. Haule writes ?Jung's choice of the word education [ ] has not been favored by most psychodynamic theories in the twentieth century. [...]