In this essay we are presenting a potential new Post-Jungian psychology. The psychology that I will be expressing is one of Jungian Psychoanalytical Cultural Psychology (JPC). One thing that I have noticed in my psychological studies is that the Jungian, psychoanalytical, Freudian, Adlerian (etc) terminology fits best with those who are neurotic. You may say ‘obviously' so because such psychologists talk a lot about mental illness. But they (Jung especially) talk about health as well. Remember that Jung is associated with meaning, religion, myth, numinosity. However, in everyday life Jung's psychology can most easily be applied to the psychologically un-well… those with complexes, those with psychological conflicts, those who dissociate (crumble), those who repress and are in denial, those who fail to integrate psychic material and those who therefore remain neurotic personalities. What is life about?
[...] The point here is that there are similarities to the Developmental school of analytical psychology due to our emphasis on stages. But it should be noted that that essay was about mental illness and evolving out of it. It only touched on meaning. Hence that essay is part of JPC Psychology and should be read by those wanting an introductory essay on neurosis. Whilst more will be said in that area we are here, in this essay, going to focus on the Self. [...]
[...] JPC Psychology contextualizes the psychological. It places the psychological within cultural context. Hence the Jungian terms, many of which we agree with, are necessary but they are necessary for us in a modern western setting. The term ‘ego' was once irrelevant and therefore didn't exist. Whilst ‘Self' didn't exist because traditional religion filled that space, hence there wasn't a need for someone like Jung there wasn't a gap in the market that needed filling. For Jung the ego is born out of the unconscious. [...]
[...] He further points out that even in the UK Mark Saban and Noel Cobb speak for the Archetypal school.5 And Tacey takes issue with regards to Samuels addition of a psychoanalytical school on the grounds that the Developmental School of analytical psychology already represents the psychoanalytical influence on Jungian thinking.6 To be clear then, the author of this work agrees with Samuels original three school model, and I agree with Tacey's views concerning Samuels changes. Also, Tacey takes issue with regards to Samuels addition of a fundamentalist school saying that he believes that there are fundamentalist wings in all of the schools.7 However, the term fundamentalist has very strong connotations and associations, for example it smacks of fanaticism and therefore the author of this work is reluctant to label any Jungian that I have come across with the label, fundamentalist. [...]
[...] use psychological terms will always be recognizable to those within Jungian psychology as deriving from Jung. However there is a crucial exception here. As we shall see I use the term Self to refer to culture. In Part 1 of this essay we will discuss the schools of Jungian analytical psychology. This will enable the reader to distinguish JPC from the other schools of thought. Then in part 2 we will specifically distinguish JPC from Classical Jungian Psychology primarily on the grounds of a different approach to the all-important ‘Self'. [...]
[...] Hence the schools of Jungian analytical psychology could become classical, developmental, archetypal, and cultural. We then went on to say where there are agreements and similarities between JPC Psychology and the existing schools. Finally, and most importantly, we distinguished JPC Psychology from all of the other schools of Jungian analytical psychology on the grounds of JPC's approach to the Self. Part 1 Notes Samuels, in Casement, A p19 & 20 Samuels, in Casement, A p21 Tacey, D ibid ibid ibid ibid Dourley, J Edinger, in Jaffe, L Part 2 Notes Budding, P Segal, R p145 Jung, in Von Franz, M. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee