Sunday, September 10, 2017
Psychoanalytic Muse editor Mark Winborn contributes a chapter Bion and Jung: Intersecting Vertices.Since the split between Freud and Jung, psychoanalysis and analytical psychology have largely developed in an atmosphere of mutual disregard. Only in recent years have both discourses shown signs of an increasing willingness to engage. Re-Encountering Jung: Analytical Psychology and Contemporary Psychoanalysis is the first edited collection of papers devoted to a reconciliation between these two fields. The contributors explore how Jungian thinking influences, challenges, and is challenged by recent developments in the psychoanalytic mainstream. In examining the nature of the split, figures from both sides of the conversation seek to establish lines of contrast and commonality so as to reflect an underlying belief in the value of reciprocal engagement.
Each of the chapters in this collection engages the relationship between Jungian and psychoanalytic thinking with the intention of showing how both lines of discourse might have something to gain from attending more to the voice of the other. While several of the contributing authors offer new perceptions on historical concerns, the main thrust of the collection is in exploring contemporary debates.
Re-Encountering Jung reflects a unique undertaking to address one of the longest-standing and most significant rifts in the history of depth psychology. It will be of great interest to all academics, students and practitioners within the fields of analytical psychology and psychoanalysis.
Thursday, August 31, 2017
MAJS faculty member Mark Winborn is presenting at the Centro Jung Study Center over three days, September 1st - 4th, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic - "Deep Blues: Human Soundscapes for the Archetypal Journey", "Fundamentals of Technique in Analytic Therapy," and "Shared Realities: Participation Mystique and Beyond" as well as a group clinical supervision.
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Announcing the publication of "Moments of Meeting in Psychoanalysis: Interaction and Change in the Therapeutic Encounter" edited by Susan Lord and published by Routledge. Psychoanalytic Muse Editor Mark Winborn contributes a chapter titled "The Aesthetics of Being." The other contributors include a wide range of psychoanalysts, Jungian analysts, and psychoanalytic psychotherapists. Order at Amazon
There are moments of connection between analysts and patients during any therapeutic encounter upon which the therapy can turn. Moments of Meeting in Psychoanalysis explores how analysts and therapists can experience these moments of meeting; shows how this interaction can become an enlivening and creative process; and seeks to recognise how it can change both the analyst and patient in profound and fundamental ways.
The theory and practice of contemporary psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy has reached an exciting new moment of generous and generative interaction. As psychoanalysts become more intersubjective and relational in their work, it becomes increasingly critical that they develop approaches that have the capacity to harness and understand powerful moments of meeting, capable of propelling change through the therapeutic relationship. Often these are surprising human moments in which both client and clinician are moved and transformed. Moments of Meeting in Psychoanalysis offers a window into the ways in which some of today’s practitioners think about, encourage, and work with these moments of meeting in their practices. Each chapter of the book offers theoretical material, case examples, and a discussion of various therapists’ reflections on and experiences with these moments of meeting.
With contributions from relational psychoanalysts, psychotherapists and Jungian analysts, and covering essential topics such as shame, impasse, mindfulness, and group work, this book provides new theoretical thinking and practical clinical guidance on how best to work with moments of meeting in any relationally oriented therapeutic practice. Moments of Meeting in Psychoanalysis will be of great interest to psychoanalysts, psychoanalytic psychotherapists, psychologists, social workers, workers in other mental health fields, graduate students, and anyone interested in change processes.
Sunday, June 4, 2017
June 11, 2017: Moscow Association for Analytical Psychology, Moscow, Russia
Sept 1-3, 2017: Centro Jung, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
Sept 23-24, 2017: Memphis-Atlanta Jungian Seminar, Memphis, Tennessee
Oct 14-15, 2017: Minneapolis Jung Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Nov 3-5, 2017: Case Colloquia, Philadelphia Assoc. of Jungian Analysts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Nov 17, 2017: American Board for Accreditation in Psychoanalysis, New York, New York
Dec 1-2, 2017: Jung Association of Central Ohio, Columbus, Ohio
Jan 26-28, 2018: Case Colloquia, Philadelphia Assoc. of Jungian Analysts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Feb 11-18, 2018: C.G. Jung Institute, Zurich/Küsnacht, Switzerland
Mar 2-4, 2018: Case Colloquia, Philadelphia Assoc. of Jungian Analysts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Apr 16-17, 2018: Case Colloquia, Philadelphia Assoc. of Jungian Analysts, in Santa Fe, New Mexico
Thursday, May 25, 2017
In Psychological Perspectives, 2016, Vol. 59, #4, pp. 490-508
Jung (like Freud) saw himself as a scientist and was constantly incorporating new ideas from other fields such as linguistics, anthropology, physics, Gnosticism, and alchemy. In fact, Jung has been referred to as a bricoler - a French word that refers to someone who pieces things together from a variety of sources. I believe Jung, if he were alive today, would have embraced the recent findings from infant observation, neurosciences, attachment research, and trauma research just as he did with Fordham’s early forays into child analysis. I would challenge us to consider whether we want to suspend progress in Analytical Psychology, preserving it in the “just so” state we’ve become comfortable with.
I believe our task as Jungians is to re-evaluate, re-cast, re-interpret Jung’s ideas in light of knowledge from other fields – just as Jung did in developing his conceptual framework originally. But we have to be in dialogue with other fields and have an understanding of their findings in order for this to occur. I believe we have a responsibility to the scientific method which shaped and informed Jung’s inquiries; a responsibility to peer more deeply into the relationship between brain and mind and between soma and psyche; into the psychological and neurological underpinnings of conscious and unconscious processes; to seriously evaluate Jung's typological model in light of current neurological and cognitive sciences; and inform our candidates about the current theoretical debate occurring between those holding apriori positions on the nature of archetypal experience and those who now postulate archetypal experience as emergent phenomena.
Ultimately, scientific empiricism can’t study or evaluate all of the elements of Analytical Psychology. Many elements of our field can’t be sufficiently operationally defined in a manner that would allow study through the scientific vertex. But there are many elements of Analytical Psychology which can be examined through a scientific lens - a process by which we can deepen our confidence in our methods and theories, gain a deeper understanding of why certain methods work, and occasionally a casting off or remaking of certain theories or practices which can’t be supported from a scientific perspective. We can’t afford to cast off empiricism out of a preference for subjectivism if Analytical Psychology is to survive another 100 years as something other than a well preserved museum piece.
Many fields of scientific inquiry have moved towards the positions advocated by Jung while at the same time adding many new insights it wasn’t possible for Jung to imagine despite his incredible breadth of vision. We do have Jungians among us who are engaged with the scientific community. There are a small cadre of others trying to bring Analytical Psychology into dialogue with contemporary science, including Mario Jacoby, George Hogenson, Joseph Cambray, Jean Knox, Margaret Wilkinson, John Merchant, Robert Romanyshyn, David Rosen, Christian Roesler, and John Haule.
In order for this shift to happen, some who come from backgrounds in the arts and humanities may need to learn something about the scientific method including research design, sample size, types of validity and reliability, as well as some familiarity with statistical inference. But this is not unlike my own journey - coming from a scientist-practitioner model of clinical psychology training and needing to become more intimately familiar with the metaphoric world of myths, fairytales, art, poetry, literature, and religion.
I hope this paper leaves you with the impression that Analytical Psychology and science can be and need to be allies rather than adversaries. We need the findings from contemporary science to help us reflect on what we experience as analytic practitioners. Science needs us to advocate for the subjective element in the laboratory. Be we cannot fulfill Jung’s dream of a Analytical Psychology as a mediatory science unless we are in an ongoing dialogue with the scientific community. In closing, I leave the reader with this thought from Carl Jung (1976, para. 1236) “Ultimate truth, if there be such a thing, demands the concert of many voices.”