It is well-documented within the Jungian world that within academia, analytical psychology is frozen out. This is with regards to psychology. And it is as a psychologist that Jung made his name. Jung also failed to make a positive impression on philosophy. His legacy (so far) concerning impact on the fields of knowledge has been evident in the likes of literature and religious studies.1 This essay will analyze why Jung is frozen out within his own field… psychology. Let's be clear from the outset… Jungian psychology is disrespected academically because those within Jungian psychology do not constructively criticize the discipline from within. There is no self-analysis. It's more of a defensive posture that is typical within the Jungian world.
[...] Jungian academics hold positions at the University of Essex in the UK where Jungian Studies is uniquely taught and at Texas A and in the US. But as Michael Vannoy Adams explains: “Jungians were not appointed to positions that already existed at those universities. Two new, special positions dedicated explicitly and exclusively to Jungian psychology had to be established. Jungians and Jungian psychology would not be at Texas A&M and Essex had not an individual and a Jungian institute donated considerable sums of money to those universities for that opportunity.”1 Vannoy Adams himself is an academic who has in the past taught Jungian psychology at a University. [...]
[...] the tadpoles in the backwater,” Mogenson exclaims, “wonder why academics and other makers of the modern mind have so little interest in Jungian psychology!”6 Returning to Segal, he argues that Jungians are disinterested in arguing for the terms and concepts that Jung used (most notably ‘archetype') and instead simply postulate it as if it were a known.7 Unfortunately this isn't critical thinking. It isn't scientific thinking. And hence Jungian studies are rejected in the academic world. Vannoy Adams goes so far as to conclude (regarding the pitiful state of Jungian studies in the University) that is inaccurate to say that academics and other makers of the modern mind have little interest in Jungian psychology. [...]
[...] [ ] This is all an attempt to defend Jung's ideas so that Jungians can complacently continue to apply them I would emphasize, uncritically.10 A critical and questioning approach to Jungian psychology does exist in the thinkers mentioned here. (e.g. Vannoy Adams and Robert Segal). But they are in a minority within Jungian Psychology. Sonu Shamdasani, the Jung researcher/historian and writer of Jung and the making of modern psychology: the dream of a science, is another highly respected thinker who has a critical and questioning approach to Jung Studies. [...]
[...] I recognize ever more that it has no place on this list [ ] It is fair to say that a debating style is simply not what members want.”11 Segal wrote those words only a few hours prior to me writing these words, so we are very up-to-date on the state of affairs in Jungian studies concerning the question of academic approach or if there should even be one. Jung's most committed disciple, Marie Louise Von Franz believed that there shouldn't in-so-far as she opposed Jung in the University. [...]
[...] In this essay though, we can agree with Adams on the following order for Jungians to the University, they are going to have to reach out to academics and not only to those who are sympathetic to Jungian psychology but also to those who are indifferent or even antagonistic and invite them into the Jungian scene, bring them literally and physically and psychically into it, in a variety of creative, innovative ways, in order for Jungians to have an opportunity to mingle with them, listen to them and speak to them, share with them, and, I would emphasize, learn from them. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee