I’ve been reading quite a bit on various topics lately and have come across quite an interesting fellow, C. G. Jung. Jung was being groomed by Freud to take over psychoanalysis, but at 38 years of age Jung jumped ship and struck out on his own. Jung has some very interesting ideas about who we are, where we’ve been, and hopefully where we are going.
Problem is, much of his writing is pretty heavy going, anyone know of some watered down, introductory type books on Jung and his writings?
I am not up on the American (or English language) literature on Jung. But there must be tons and tons and tons of it. Very influential and fashionable esp. in the seventies.
If you want a fun backdoor into Jungian thought, look into the Meyer Briggs personality test. It is based on Jung’s types and will give you a nice introduction at least to that part of Jung’s psychology (“Psychologie der Typen”, “Typologie”, “Archetypen”).
Generally I think it’s good to read the author himself, and not secondary works. Schein und Sein is manageable, but I don’t know what it’s called in English.
Memories, Dreams, and Reflections by Jung is
one of his famous and accessible books.
One of the reasons Freud wanted Jung to take over
the movement was that Jung wasn’t jewish
and Freud didn’t want the psychoanalytic movement
typed as a Jewish movement.
Jung felt strongly that religious concerns had a great
deal to do with human emotional problems; he
wasn’t so enamored with the idea that sexuality
is the primal motivation.
He was very authentic with his patients, not
Herr Docteur, like Freud. You actually dealt
with the man.
Jungian therapy seems better adapted to
creative people who want to become more
creative, rather than people struggling with
serious personal problems. These days many
therapists who get burned out become
Jungians, partly to have an easier
caseload.
I see him as a very attractive fellow, personally,
who had some interesting ideas; and I think
he isn’t far afield in supposes that religious
concerns are worth addressing in psychotherapy,
because often mentally ill people have
a deep feeling that the universe is an
irrational and nasty place. Many are angry
with God.
But if I was in deep trouble I would not go
to a Jungian. A friend of mine went through several
years of Jungian analysis, was immensely pleased,
then had a bad personal experience and
folded up like an accordian. Best
Like Bloomfield, I would not look to secondary works to get a real understanding of Jung. The autobiographical ‘Memories, Dreans, and Reflections,’ recommended by Jim, is a great read, but it won’t give much insight into his major writings. ‘The Portable Jung,’ edited by Joseph Campbell, is good. Once you gain some familiarity with his technical jargon (archetypes, self, unconscious, ego, animus, anima, to name a few), then it is not impossible to read him with some degree of comprehension, provided there is a good library nearby where you can look up the numerous references in philosophy, alchemy, eastern religions, Christian theology, etc.
If the advise you’ve been given sounds diffuse, vague and a bit daunting, I’m sorry but I can’t do any better. Jung was, in many respects, a very expansive thinker and I don’t think there is any very easy way into his thought.
Australians, by and large, are rather sceptical of the benefits of analysis in all its forms. There is a tendency to regard it as self indulgent and ‘something Americans do.’ Intellectuals who grew up in the 30s and 40s were much enamored of Freud, though, and they reacted with dissappointment and some annoyance when their intellectual children and grandchildren regarded psychoanalysis as a fascinating but dated fad.
The main problem seems to concern it’s status: is it an art or is at a science? If the latter, then the notion of ‘resistance to therapy’ had better not be trotted out as an excuse for dismissing all inconvenient evidence. As a friend of mine remarked recently: (Freudian) psychoanalysis is a wonderful theory; what a shame there isn’t a scrap of evidence for it.
But I digress. Jung is well worth a read.
Yep!
Its that wombat trundling about in the dark …
Australians, by and large , like to speak for themselves.
( 
OOps. Caught by my own fire).
You know where Wombat lives,
we call that place the Gong.
they are still talkin about Americans down there.
Bit of a counter cargo cult. 
Monster,
the writings of the contemporary Thomas Moore,
archetypal psychologist and musicologist may interest you.
Enjoy.
What you say is quite true Ridseard, Jung’s writings are crammed with technical jargon, it takes some getting used to. I’ve found a website that is sort of a primer at http://www.studiocleo.com/librarie/jung/introboereemain.html
Because of its length and expense
and the extraordinary
conservativism of the psychoanalytic establishment,
psychoanaalysis is rare as a treatment
modality here. But there have been
plenty of replacements.
Is the ‘resistance’ in Australis to all forms
of psychotherapy?
I don’t claim to be in touch with ordinary Austalians away from my haunts which are pretty much Wollongong and Melbourne. Perhaps the chardonay set in Sydney are into analysis. But I don’t think it’s very common for people to seek analysis in any form here. Actually, I don’t recall it being very popular in England or New Zealand when I lived there either. It was something encountered mainly in Woody Allen films.
My impression is that in all these places people prefer to go to the pub, talk to their friends and, if absolutely necessary, take some pills. I know lots of people who’ve read Freud and Jung. I even know an analyst alhtough his practice doesn’t prevent him holding down a full-time university post. But, off hand, I’m struggling to think of anyone under teh age of 70 who’s actually been in analysis although, if I sit here long enough, I’m sure I’d think of a few. I could name several over the age of 70 though, but all of them intellectuals.
Actual American culture tends to view analysis the same way the Australians do, from what you say, Wombat (et al.). I find it interesting that they’d consider it indulgent and perhaps something “Americans do.”
The largest percentage of Americans who get analyzed are the ones on the TV shows and movies we export . . . having spent some time in psychiatric clerkship a few years back, I can tell you it’s far from common. The opposite, really, and mainstream American culture tends to view it as a weakness. It’s actually handled very well in The Sopranos, since it’s an amazing juxtaposition that Tony needs to see a shrink. It doesn’t look normal to us, but more ironic.
Though, since I went “abroad” and started to meet folks from other places, including Australia and New Zealand, I’m amazed at how people think that Americans are bombarded with propaganda, but that they themselves probably have an accurate view of the world . . . NOT! 
It’s also possible, though a stretch (but bear with me) that the sample on C&F is quite skewed in favor of folks who would look on analysis as beneficial. Irish music . . . slow airs . . . celtic new age . . . just a different cult of the self.
Interesting.
Stuart
I doubt very much whether Australians think that analysis is big in the American south or mid west. I doubt too that Australians think that it is very commonplace. But I know Americans in analysis and other chaty forms of ‘therapy’ and I simply don’t know, well, not without thinking hard, Australians and Britains who are. Anecdotal, but I see a lot of Americans in my line of work.
My remark about Woody Allen was a bit of a joke, of course, but only a bit of a joke. Our impressions, true of false, that don’t come from personal acquintances come from the characters in movies, not from the behaviour of the stars. If some middle classs character announces in a movie that he’s ‘in analysis’ and people around are not astonished, then I assume that the paying American audience isn’t going to be astonished, especially if this happens in quite a few movies.
Although it’s taking this thread OT, I thought I’d elaborate further a bit on my answers to Stuart. I think this thing about cultural stereotyping is very interesting.
My impression, from having lived in several countries and visited many others, is that no national group (taken as a group) has a very good understanding of any other group. The stereotyping of one’s own culture is most obvious because so obviously ridiculous. In England I just laughed it off, nobody worth knowing persisted with the stereotyping beyond a few minutes and most of those who started were joking, or later pretended they were. Of course, I quickly acquired some very good lines for embarrassing those who persisted.
Actually, it never occurred to me that the C&F population would be a representative cross-section of American society.
This has nothing at all to do with analysis, but I think that opinions of students in Wollongong about Americans (as a group) would not be based so much on movies and TV as on first hand experience with the hundreds of American exchange students who flood in each year. My impression, perhaps superficial, is that most Americans seem to enjoy their stay very much once the intitial culture shock has worn off and few have problems making friends with Australians.
If Americans are perceived differently from other groups by Australians, New Zealanders, Brits, French and so on—I mean if our misunderstandings of Americans are worse than our misunderstandings of eachother—then this might have a lot to do with TV and Hollywood. But what do you want those with very little personal experience of Americans to believe? Obviously, those media are portraying something of an image. They certainly seem to be not only portraying a culture but also promoting it. But, the image is never going to come across quite as the imagemakers intend since they can’t take into account all the filters their creations will be seen through. Sometimes, especially with America’s clout in the world, people in other countries feel in a ‘no win’ situation. If you don’t buy the projected self image you are anti-American. If you do buy it, but filter it through your own cultural glasses, you are a naive stereotyper.
I want to say again that many, perhaps most, forms of
psychotherapy aren’t analysis. There is a wide
range of treatment modalities, in a fair
number nothing gets analyzed. Lots of
people in psychotherapy look at
analysis as Australians do. Best
I probably haven’t got this across, but I think that very few Australians go in for psychotherapy in any form. Same with Britains. I’m not saying it’s a good thing. It just is.
Wombat Wrote:
'…But I know Americans in analysis and other chaty forms of ‘therapy’ and I simply don’t know, well, not without thinking hard, Australians and Britains who are. Anecdotal, but I see a lot of Americans in my line of work.
Much of this is an issue of language. In the Uk we do not generally use the term ‘Analysis’. Here talking therapys are usually reffered to as just counselling. From there it can be broken down into different ‘disciplines’ eg Psychodynamic, Humanistic, Behavioral, Cognative et al.
The UK does have a long history of using talking therapy particularly in the fields of addiction and mental health.
I don’t think people read Jung because they are particularly interested in psychoanalysis as such, but rather because they are interested in his ‘ideas about who we are, where we’ve been, and hopefully where we are going’ [quote from Monster’s original post].
It is unfortunate that he has become a sort of guru to many New Agers and other cult-types, who interpret his ideas according to what they want to believe rather than seriously attempting to understand what he was trying to communicate. The notion of the ‘collective unconscious’ is particularly subject to this sort of abuse, as is ‘synchronicity.’ Aaaarrrggh!
Funny you should say that, Ridseard.
I had the very same idea myself,
at the same time.
A story about Jung that rather says something
about the man:
a fellow came to Jung and showed him
a book he had written analysing himself.
Jung read the book, talked to the man,
and concluded the book was entirely accurate.
‘Then how is it that I’m still neurotic?’
the man asked.
‘How did you get all the time to write this book?’
‘I’m being supported by a wealthy woman.
She believes I’m going to marry her, but
I have no intention of doing so.’
‘That’s why you’re still neurotic’ Jung said.
The man left in a huff.
I’m making personal observations that could easily be wrong of Australians and Britains. I lived in England for 7 years, although quite a while ago. My impression then was that people seemed to ask for and receive counselling about as often as I’d been used to in Australia which wasn’t often, unless you count, as therapy, things like very occasional visits to a student counseller near exam time which never develop into ongoing programs of treatment. But I do think that people are making a bit too much of a casual observation which I readily admit could easily be mistaken. I mean: this isn’t something I’d bet on.
Your point about people with psychiatric disorders is well taken but even here my impression is that people would be more inclined in Australia to just put up with depression than they should or to seek a quick fix from a GP. I certainly don’t think that that’s a good thing. Also, it might once have been true but be true no longer. I can’t support the observation with statistics although there are probably relevant stats available.