Values in Jungian Training: 2 essays & a dialogue / Yehuda Abramovitch, Jan Wiener

The following papers and dialogue were presented at the IAAP conference, dedicated to IAAP values. June 2024


The tension between science and knowledge on one hand, and values on the other, is as ancient as medicine, the art (or perhaps the craft) of healing. Our trainings and our continuous education also evolve around this line of tension.

Knowledge is general, public, and in the light of the sun. It is, or at least should be, available to everyone who searches for it. Whereas the quest for knowledge, for understanding and explaining the world and its phenomena, is collective, is part of being human, congruent with human nature, values, besides pertaining also to the human condition, are personal, often hidden, to be discovered and shaped and reshaped along the path of life.

Webster dictionary offers more than thirteen different definitions for the word "value". Yet, here is one more definition that I prefer which explains best the meaning I find for the notion "Values". Values, it says, are all those unnecessary issues that a person decides to stick to even at the expense of sacrificing their personal needs. Therefore, personal values, of different individuals, can be the opposite of each other when dealing with the same and common event. To quote just one example: Eleanor Roosevelt, in one of her speeches during WW II, maintained that the war going on at that time was a sacred war because its purpose was to ensure a world in which a glass of milk would be guaranteed to every child regardless of nation, race, or religion. At the same time, from the other side of the ocean, General Tojo, Prime Minister of Japan, maintained that the same war was sacred because of the value of dying for the honor of the country and the emperor.

Many historic examples can testify to this ancient tension between knowledge and values. Ancient Greece offers a good one. Two separate systems of medicine were practiced side by side along the shores of the Aegean Sea. The first one was a "Technical Medicine". Technical comes from the Greek word "techne" meaning art and also craft. This medicine had roots in and evolved from several schools of thought, undoubtedly the most famous and widespread being the Hippocratic School. Common to all technical schools was the application of rational procedures elaborated by intellect and by available knowledge, based on the current state of the art. For the Hippocratic practitioner, the disease emerged from disturbance of the equilibrium between the external environment (i.e., air, food, water, etc.) and the human body. This disturbed equilibrium manifests itself in the disturbed balance of the internal "humors" (body fluids). Equilibrium should be restored through various means that can be taught, learned, put to the test, verified, and discussed publicly (it included changes of habits, diets, potions, physical touch, and many more). Besides this empirical medicine, a second one flourished, the Medicine in the Temples. More than 300 temples dedicated to Asclepius, god of medicine, the so-called "Asclepieia", have been counted by archaeologists almost everywhere in the classical Greek world. These temples were open and welcomed everyone. The person entering the temple was encountered by a priest who inquired about the person, his issues, and his economic situation. In line with this economic situation, the sacrifice to offer to the god was decided (a bull for the rich, a rooster for the poor, etc.). The person seeking aid then passed through a process of purification and then put to sleep, Hypnos and Oneiros, gods of sleep and dreams, were summoned. Usually, the person was put to sleep on the hide of his sacrificed animal. As psychologists, we would say nowadays that the healing was perceived as connected to a sacrifice of mundane wealth. In the morning, he would discuss his dreams with the "ierofantos", meaning with the one who explains the sacred. The god was giving meaning to the dreams through the priest. So, it was believed. Alternatively, in our words, the priest in touch with his own soul and the soul of the patient interpreted the dream.

Largely, we, analysts, are nowadays the followers of these ancient "Asclepian", those priests of Asclepius who in search of the personal voice distanced themselves from the generally accepted medical knowledge by listening to the personal soul of those who searched relief from their pains.

But are we really searching for the personal in the way we build our trainings?

Analytical theory, as a body of knowledge, is in the light of the sun. Its principles are published, discussed, and elaborated. It includes a theory on the nature of the psyche, several developmental theories, a theory of complexes, of dream interpretation, typology, insights on synchronicity, alchemy, and many more aspects. As a theory, it is based on values, so I believe, and it is accepted as such collectively by our community of Analytical Psychologists. Such values include encountering the shadow, accepting the reality of the internal world, encountering the libido in images, understanding the images of our dreams and other images of the soul as symbols, living concomitantly in our internal and external world, and many more. All these are values, probably commonly accepted as values of the community.

The question remains: how do we bridge this gap between the body of knowledge accumulated and the collective values of the community on one hand, and the personal experience and the personal meaning one gives to both, on the other?

In other words, do we cultivate and cherish in our trainings and in our life a personal, possibly critical position in front of these collective values? A personal Ethic.

Do we really consider it an ideal to aspire to?

This is the challenge, this is the obstacle, and at the same time, the bridge to pass.

Discussing his concept of the "New Ethic", Erich Neumann compared the development of consciousness to the development of Ethics. For this discussion, I believe we can use the terms of ethics and values interchangeably as I believe we all agree that recognizing and assuming responsibility for the whole personality is one of the most, if not the central value of Analytical Psychology, and is at the same time the cornerstone of the New Ethic.

This developmental process of consciousness and of identifying and recognizing our personal values develops along the life of the individual, is guided by his developmental tendencies, and is based on universal archetypal principles.

Discussing his concept of the "New Ethic", Erich Neumann compared the development of consciousness to the development of Ethics. For this discussion, I believe we can use the terms of ethics and values interchangeably as I believe we all agree that recognizing and assuming responsibility for the whole personality is one of the most, if not the central value of Analytical Psychology, and is at the same time the cornerstone of the New Ethic.

This developmental process of consciousness and of identifying and recognizing our personal values develops along the life of the individual, is guided by his developmental tendencies, and is based on universal archetypal principles.

 The Old Testament offers a good amplification of the development of ethics and values. In the oldest part of the Bible, the so-called historical books from Deuteronomy through the books of Samuel and Kings, no personal sin is recognized. The society is condemned for abandoning God, and the sins accumulate over generations until the wrath of God falls upon the   people.

 However, books edited generations later, like the "Books of Chronicles", show a different attitude. Now, each person is responsible before God. No longer is the son held responsible for the sins of the father.

 Yet, even here, the values are communal; they represent the reign of the collective consciousness

The next personal mental leap will be the relation to the "Internal Voice". That which may place the individual in a position where he does not necessarily adopt the values of the collective. Sometimes it happens that securing the fulfillment of those personal needs of the individual may run counter to collective values. Surprisingly, says Neumann, it happens that assuming collective values and by so doing avoiding evil and conflict turns out to be "unethical" from the standpoint of the "Voice".

The problem remains and it is made more clear: how do we reconcile the teaching of a theory with the personal way of experiencing it? With the personal meaning one gives to knowledge? To the criticism one needs to develop in respect to every collective truth.

Our trainings are conducted in groups, we have reading lists, we write and we lecture, meet at conferences, we are linked to our schools of thoughts, limited by lineage of our teachers who have "imprinted" their learned authority and their conflicts.

Contrary to this situation previously described, listening internally to our Voice implies a continuous critical attitude, a continuous defining of one's values, a continuous scrutiny of theory vis-à-vis the personal meaning one gives to it, in line with one's values.

Do we support this line, do we encourage a personal approach to theory, and do we emphasize how theory is metabolized and comes to life in our psyche or of our students, or do we just tend to promote knowledge?

I am not sure I know the answer.

Recent events in my Jungian society highlighted my understanding how distant we Jungians are, in troubled and distressed days, from the respect and the acceptance due to colleagues who differ in their set of values. How difficult it is "to swallow" the other when their views based on their personal values differ from the common and "warm" collective majority.

When writing these lines Israel is involved once more in a brutal war. A ferocious attack in the south of the country causing many losses of lives and many kidnapped civilians awoke all ancient Jewish-Israeli demons. All Jewish cultural and historical complexes were activated and a no less ferocious war of revenge was released. A revenge spreading indiscriminately death and destruction. It seemed some kind of blindness took over the land incapacitating the people to open up to the suffering of the other.

Statements by some members of our society about the futility of the war or showing concern for its brutality or caring for the suffering of others have been moved aside by those who felt immersed in their personal fear and sorrow. A need to join in a collective declaration showing professional concern and worry of the physical and mental state of the kidnapped appeared. A need to agree, of being together.

Apparently who could oppose.

But there were some.

Some members who felt that a collective declaration, any collective declaration, was in contrast with their beliefs. Or others who maintained that publication of such a declaration would be in line with those who tend to stop the war. A war they considered so just.

A heated debate ensued and continues with threats to remove members or threats of others to leave or to resign if their perspective is declined.

It is too early to foresee these days how this conflict will evolve. Whether our society will survive this crisis.

I mention this real-life example to show how easily we, analyzed analysts, tend to succumb to processes of collectivization. How non-receptive we can be to the diverse Voice of the other, how slippery is the road to regression, from the New Ethic back to the Old Ethic, where the shadow, the alien, "the other" is to be removed or eliminated.

We fail in political challenges of daily life and no less in interpreting our psychological theories.

The subject of my talk is values of training and continuous education, I want to close with words of love and respect to my teacher who was not a Jungian but he was more.

 I remember myself shaking as I was entering the hospital on my first day as a resident in psychiatry. My boss, who was to become my venerated teacher, greeted me with a stern look and said: "Don't ever forget, symptoms have meanings".

Indeed, symptoms have meanings, and I never forget it, but not only symptoms have meaning. I keep reminding myself that also theories and values must be given a personal meaning, otherwise, they lose their vitality.


The Dynamics of Influence in Training / Jan Wiener, SAP


What we all hope for, I imagine, when we offer training to our candidates is to facilitate a process whereby our trainees can all develop into authentic analysts who have learned the competences they need, have developed personally, can use their imagination and will be seen as safe to work with a range of patients in different environments. Whilst Jungian trainings in different parts of the world are likely to vary in their structures, content and processes, most will involve an initial gatekeeping process of selection; requirements to have personal analysis; to study theory; to work with training patients under supervision and also, to have in place a process of assessment/evaluation during training up to qualification.

On the surface, we hope that our candidates will develop an analytic and ethical attitude during their training, but also, and important for my presentation, to be able to internalise analytic values and to use what they are offered to discover their own style of work, their own internal working models and find their own voice to express their views. I would suggest that these are the values we consciously hold dear in the field of training and the trainers do their best to foster an atmosphere where personal and professional development is possible and to ensure too that what is offered remains relevant in an ever-changing local and global culture.

In this short presentation, I hope to map out some of the less conscious forces that can undermine the very values we are trying to promote and can seriously impede discussion and debate within and between our societies. These forces are likely to make the integration of analytic values and the development of the individual voices of our candidates that we are hoping to facilitate complicated and often very difficult.

Personal Vignettes from my own SAP Training

Let me set the scene by giving you a few short examples from my own training and post-training.

  1. When I approached an SAP supervisor to ask if he would work with me with my first training patient, his first question was (I have never forgotten the shock of it) ‘who is your analyst?’
  2. During my own training, when I went to supervision and I began to present the sessions with my patient, I knew that if I had not made a transference interpretation within the first 25 minutes, my supervisor would say, ‘and what about the transference?’
  3. The first IAAP Congress I attended was in Paris in 1989. I had only just qualified at the SAP. Such was my culture shock at what I was hearing in the papers presented and the panel discussions, that I recall coming home and saying to my analyst, ‘it was like listening to foreign languages. Am a really a Jungian analyst?’
  4. Much time has gone by since then, but during my early visits to teach and supervise in Russia the mid-1990’s, I recall on the first teaching visit asking for a suitable space to give seminars. On arrival, we were greeted by our translator who ushered us to a huge, tiered lecture theatre inviting a totally different approach. There was either a misunderstanding, or overseas teachers were expected to engage formally with students in Russian culture, an expectation that they had all the answers. How easy to become inflated by this. Later, and halfway through a lecture, I suddenly felt strongly that what I was offering was not right. I was promoting Western values learned – perhaps embedded – from my SAP training. What I needed to do, I realised, was to find out where they were, culturally, educationally and socially and go from there. There were often clashes of values with our Russian routers; for example, when we were making a presentation on the topic of money, I recall a candidate saying, ‘you do not understand the meaning of money in our culture’. They were quite right of course!
  5. This vignette is not personal, but I wanted to mention Roderick Peter’s paper ‘the therapist’s expectations of the transference’, published in the JAP in 1991 soon after he qualified. In the paper, he certainly finds a voice of his own and in the safety of having completed his training at the SAP, he could voice strong views about the dangers of therapist’s listening only for transference communications from their patients.
  6. And finally, two or three years ago, a trainee close to qualifying, phoned me to ask if I would supervise her work with a recently referred private analytic patient. Why, I asked do you want another supervisor when you have two already. The reply came as follows, ’I am learning a lot from my supervisors, but I think they want to make me into versions of them’.

There is much to take from these albeit very brief vignettes:

  1. There is no one approach to Jungian analysis. – no one language. Indeed, it could be said that there is no consensus of meaning in the concepts we use and so they are easy to misappropriate.
  2. There is an inevitability that we will become embedded into the training culture we have known. Our provenance will affect our perceptions of theoretical ideas, of clinical practice in the consulting room and how we view the values of others including the way others practice. We all know of past and present divisions within our institutes leading to painful splits and certainly times when an atmosphere of hatred and criticism can pervade the membership. When candidates observe this, how easily this atmosphere of criticism can travel through to subsequent generations. Our battle wounds and scars continue to be disabling and trainees are inevitably drawn into the power struggles.
  3. Further to this, sub-groups that form within our Societies mean that pluralism is often really a disguise for tribalism. How will this affect our candidates, we might wonder. Further to this, how for example do we design a fair curriculum for our candidates so they can experience different points of view.
  4. For me, it was only when I gave myself permission to emerge from my own institute, my tribe if you like, to work in other cultures, that I began to truly appreciate and indeed welcome difference and ‘otherness’ in the Jungian world and the subtle differences between the training values I hold dear and ‘the lives of others’. Many of my colleagues choose what might be seen as a more comfortable path, remaining wedded to their training values and rarely venturing abroad.

Assessing the Progress of our Candidates

Wrottesley (2023) in her paper Unaccountable power in our training institutes, points out that,

those in powerful training positions may be related to or relate to themselves as owning reality and possessing truth and as the arbiters of what is right and wrong, healthy and pathological…(this) breeds trainees who are submissive and too respectful.

Along similar lines, Sugarman (2023) is of the view that,

idealization, fanaticism and dogmatism are defences against uncertainty about what we do not know.

None of us can possibly ‘know’ the unconscious.

The supervisors of our candidates are in powerful training positions when it comes to assessing the progress of candidates.

Rothstein (2023) explores the dynamics of assessing candidates and the personal responses of supervisors of which they are often unaware. Of particular importance to him are the supervisor’s relationship to the training institute; kindly supervisors who avoid areas of concern and may champion their supervisees even when the criteria for qualification have not been met and finally the personal needs of the supervisor who may wish to create clones of themselves.

I suppose that supervisors are rather like singing teachers. Good singers with professional futures are likely to enhance the reputation of their singing teachers, drawing in other students.

Facilitating a Climate of Discussion and Debate

What can we do about the less conscious factors that affect training values?

David Tuckett points out,

psychoanalytic groupings have often not constructed legitimating processes and formulae that are sufficiently robust to address basic disagreements and to resolve them except on the basis of loyalty.  (Tuckett, 2001)

Similarly, Busch (2022) comments,

we have to learn to argue with each other. That’s what we don’t do. We talk past each other….even with theories; what people do is they don’t sharpen differences, they level differences.

Without the kinds of structures in place that Tuckett talks about to discuss our differences, trainees are likely become caught in a conflict between developing a voice of their own versus pressures for loyalty, following in the footsteps of analysts, supervisors and teachers, and analysis becomes a culture of persuasion rather than a culture of open and democratic learning.

Tuckett thinks we need to use what he calls grounded theory, using clinical material and material from supervision in order to struggle to find common meanings. But this requires a curiosity to explore differences, rather than many who avoid it as it is simply too threatening. When I was Director of Training at the SAP, I recall trying to set up such meetings for our training analysts and supervisors, but they fizzled out because SAP analysts were reluctant to present their work to colleagues, anticipating criticism! ‘Confidentiality’ can cover a multitude of evasions.

Astrid Berg (2023) talks about training in reflective practice (for trainees and analysts) where relationships are at the centre, all partners have equal value; reparation and the acknowledgment of mistakes is essential and cultural differences are valued.

Gus Cwik (2023) emphasises the need for a training in ‘thirdness’, holding the tension between difference and sameness and to sustain a democratic approach to training in contrast to the frequently observed collapse into a state of two-ness, where fusion and power dynamics can lead to an authoritarian approach to training.

You may have other ideas about how can we create structures where we can look at our own internal working models, the implicit theory we hold dear and ways of practice and compare them with other internal working models. Further, this may affect how we create a learning environment for our candidates.

The Way Forward

On an optimistic note, the IAAP Developing Groups and Router Programmes have encouraged an albeit small proportion of members from different Jungian Societies to step out of their training closets into a wider world of training. In London, working in Eastern Europe brought some members of all four Jungian groups together again, working together with a common purpose to organise programmes of teaching and supervision in very different cultures to our own. Differences in values could be discussed and debated.

Misser Berg (2023: 162-163) acknowledges the need to map out the expectations of this work to teachers, supervisors and personal analysts working in the router programmes because their provenance differs so widely. The router training culture then offers opportunities for the trainers to explore their differences and begin to consider how best to organise a world-wide training in cultures that are so different to each other. The IAAP now has a working group on training and Grazina Gudaite in particular, has embarked on research projects to assess these programmes.

I do wonder however, that if debate and discussion about differences in training values is so difficult within training institutes, how do routers and members of developing groups experience those of us who step away from our lairs to teach abroad. Do they become confused when exposed to different approaches especially if offered within a culture of persuasion. Alexandrova (2011), for example, reflects on her router training and the regular visits from UK analysts, comparing them with the old-style rigid baby-feeding patterns when mothers had to work as well. During her training, she found both teachers and students sleep-deprived in different time zones, but more importantly, the rigid shuttle schedule left little time for reverie or time-wasting.

How are examiners chosen and is there consideration of whether or not the examiner(s) know about the training programme in different groups, and indeed what literature is available and the quality of translations.

I have focussed particularly in this presentation on the less conscious aspects of our training values that prevent candidates from individuating during their training. I would like to end with a quote attributed to Brian O’Driscoll the famous Irish rugby player was  asked about the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge, he said, is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad!! We have plenty of knowledge, but the skill is how to offer our trainees a tempting fruit salad that they can truly savour!


Alexandrova, N. (2011) ‘Fifteen minute stories about training’, Journal of Analytical Psychology, volume 56, 5 pp 627-653

Berg, A. (2023) ‘The relevance of reflective practice in the training of Jungian analysts. Chapter 9 in Exploring Core Competencies in Jungian Psychoanalysis (Gudaite and Kelly Eds). London: Routledge

Berg, M. (2023) How can the IAAP Router Training foster the development of core competencies in future members of the IAAP. Chapter 11 in Exploring Core Competencies in Jungian Psychoanalysis (Gudaite and Kelly Eds. London: Routledge

Busch, F.  (2022) Contemporary conflict theory; journey of a psychoanalyst. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, volume 70 issue 2

Cwik, G. (2023) Training in thirdness and thirdness in training. Chapter 10 in Exploring Core Competencies in Jungian Psychoanalysis (Gudaite and Kelly Eds). London: Routledge

Peters, R, (1991) The Therapist’s expectations of the transference, Journal of Analytical Psychology, 36 ,77-92

Rothstein, A. (2023) The Ubiquity of Countertransferential and Other Personal Reponses in Progression Deliberations. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, Open, (9) (26) 1-370.

Sugarman, A. (2023) The deleterious impact of idealization and fanaticism and their underlying causes in psychoanalytic education, IJP, 104, 1, pp 153-160

Tuckett, D. (2001) ‘towards a more facilitating peer environment’ IJP, 82, 643-651

Tuckett, D. (2023) Debating well and its obstacles, IJP 104, 1 pp 178-182

Wrottesley, C. (2003) Unaccountable power in our training institutions: In a dark time, the eye begins to see. Paper given at SAP Training Conference, November 2023


Dialogue between Yehuda Abramovitch and Jan Wiener

Question 1 :

Jan to Yehuda: We make similar points but in such different styles. Do you think this reflects our different training and influences upon us?

Yehuda: I would start by acknowledging that we are different people, but you are right that this reflects our different approaches.

 I remember my first teaching visit to Krasnodar, Russia, with my colleague Tamar Kron. We asked the participants to present a dream, which we then discussed separately, without prior preparation. Naturally, each of us brought our own associations and understandings. We wanted to emphasize that there is no one way to the soul and no correct way. No ‘school solution’ as we felt was expected of us to provide.

In our training, we try to teach in pairs. It is helpful to discuss with a colleague when preparing a seminar, and it is usually much easier than alone. We teach with two teachers in the room, an idea introduced by our mutual friend, Henry Abramovitch. It does not work every time or with every colleague, but when it does, it is very effective. It is not so much because we aim to teach about controversies, although that is important, and we do not avoid it. The purpose is to emphasize a personal approach to the material presented. Usually, trainees participate in the debates between teachers, and in my opinion, it helps create personal insights into the material.

Additionally, following Neumann's style, we tend to pay special attention to the symbolic and mythological aspects in our training. However, many of us probably need to develop more of the academic and scientific aspects of theory in the training process.

Yehuda to Jan: What do you think of our different styles, Jan? 

Jan: I agree, it is difficult to tease out what is personal and what comes from my SAP training culture. I have drawn on both Jungian authors and psychoanalytic writing in my talk that I guess reflects the ethos of the SAP as it was set up in 1946 by Michael Fordham. He was keen to bring depth psychology and psychoanalysis closer together. Although we do of course pay attention to the symbolic in my Institute, less so the mythological. I have found that in my teaching in different parts of the world, we have paid a lot of attention to boundaries and the frame/setting of analysis within which work can take place. Often clinical issues have been more important than teaching theory and Jungian concepts. At least that is what routers were looking for. This probably also reflects the SAP’s greater emphasis on the clinical to the theoretical. However, I do feel that my way of working with patients – and indeed supervisees – has changed a lot since my training. The relationship remains crucial but the way I work with it is actually less transference-based. Or I work with transference in a much more nuanced way, depending on the patient in the room with me.

I like very much your idea of two teachers modelling different approaches for the candidates. We do a little of that for study days, but I am not sure our CEO would agree to pay two people to teach at the same time! I will take this idea back home with me.

 Question 2 :

Jan to Yehuda: You mention Neumann in your talk, and you have even honored him by adding his name to the name of your Society. I was trying to understand the thinking in your Institute behind this move.

Yehuda: Thank you for this question, Jan. I am happy to discuss it.

As usual, there are good reasons and real reasons, and I have my personal reasons behind this decision. I was the President of our Society during the period of this change of name and so I believe I had a certain impact on this move.

The good reasons are that Neumann was such an important thinker in the Jungian world. He lived and worked in Tel Aviv, was one of the founders of the IAAP and the founder of our Jungian society. He was the teacher, analyst, supervisor, and mentor of our analysts and supervisors who have always been happy to share their memories of him with their students and supervisees.

The real reasons are that we feel a special connection with Neumann. He was like us, or rather, we are like him. Almost all of us, if not all, are either first or second-generation immigrants. Neumann lived in Tel Aviv, but his heart, thoughts, and identity were deeply rooted in European/Western culture. Like him, we live in Israel, but we feel as if we are Europeans.

However, I had my own ideas. Neumann lived in Tel Aviv during 1948/49, the years the State of Israel was founded, a time of immense joy and elation among the Jewish population and simultaneously the years of the Palestinian catastrophe (the Nakba). All that happened around him, and he said nothing about it! From his letters to Jung during those years, it is clear he was preoccupied with the publishing of his books, the politics in the Zurich Psychological Club, and similar matters.                                                                                                                            For a long time, I thought this was outrageous!                                                                           Then I realized he published The New Ethic in 1949. For me, this essay has become his true legacy, and its message is so necessary these days.                                              In The New Ethic, he discussed the necessity, the compulsion to commit evil in the service of the Self on the way to individuation. But he also said one must be aware and take responsibility for the necessary evil committed; we have to carry this burden. Only through this awareness, so I believe, is there a possible way towards future reconciliation.                                                                                                           A possible way to life.

For all these reasons, I feel good honoring Neumann's name in our society.

Yehuda to Jan: You Jan, did not mention Fordham in your talk. Not by chance I imagine.

Jan: Thank you, Yehuda. I understand much better now why you have changed the name of your Society. Neumann was so embedded in the culture of Israel and all of you. In one way, what you say about Neumann, I could also say about Fordham, who was involved with the IAAP from the beginning and of course the translation of the Collected Works into English. However, I cannot imagine that the SAP membership would wish to add to our name ‘in honor of Michael Fordham’. But perhaps his relationship to the SAP in the deeper aspects you map out was less strong.

Like Neumann, he was a key figure when I was training. I knew him a little, but he was getting very old then. His seminal ideas on child development continue to be topics for seminars for our trainees, also his views on transference, particularly countertransference. These are for sure important integrated values for me in what Fordham used to call our personal ‘filing cabinets’. I did not deliberately leave Fordham out of my talk, but personally, I have become more Jungian as I get older. I am much more interested now in Jung’s ideas about unconscious identity, the larger unconscious and how this is constellated with my patients in the consulting room.

Question 3 :

Yehuda to Jan:   In the concluding chapter of your book Jungian Analysts working across Cultures: From Tradition to Innovation that you edited with Catherine Crowther, you write: ‘In the past theory influenced practice. Working in different cultural settings permits practice to influence theory’.  Do you think our theory and our practice are really open to change?  Do you regard these changes vis a vis to fundamentals of theory as one of our essential values?

Jan: My answer to this question is surely ‘yes’. Listening to the papers here over the past couple of days, we have seen how practice can influence and change our perspectives on theory. I was thinking particularly about Toshio and Astrid’s papers on an interdependent rather than an independent self. I was thinking too about Valentina’s paper about how the setting and the boundaries of the analytic relationship can be adapted in special circumstances when in the middle of a ghastly war. If our theory cannot evolve from our practice, there is a danger that we all become moribund. There is much Jungian theory that remains so relevant today with the potential for adaptation across cultures but other aspects less so. Working in other cultures, especially in Eastern Europe, has changed the way I work at home.

Jan: We have run out of time here so I cannot not ask you the same question Yehuda.

דילוג לתוכן