Pier Claudio Devescovi on the Separation of Freud and Jung

Introduction: "The thesis I wish to uphold is that Jung, at the time of his first meeting with Freud, had already developed his own understanding of the Unconscious and of psychic functioning and had autonomously elaborated a method of his own.

His ideas and his method, with their deep-seated roots in humanistic culture, had taken shape during his years at the University of Basel (1895-1900). It was in his degree dissertation entitled ‘On the psychology and pathology of so-called occult phenomena’ (Jung 1902) that they were first presented in a more organic way.

I shall try to follow the formation of Jungian ideas using his university years' documents—some already published and others still in course of publication—so as to highlight the relevant historical coordinates and cultural influences. I believe that these elements played an important part in Jung's relations with Freud and in their separation. Beyond the many facets of this undoubtedly very complex relationship, the fact remains that the two men had incredibly different cultural backgrounds and ways of thinking. Independently from one another, they both constructed hypotheses on psychic functioning and on the aetiology of neurosis and elaborated a method for analysing the Unconscious." (p. 277)

Conclusion: "I have tried to highlight the nucleus of Jung's initial ideas, tracing their origins and derivations. Jung's conceptions of mythology and religion, his historical perspective, his understanding of the Unconscious, of repression and of the aetiology of hysteria have roots in a cultural background and in a method very different from Freud's. The originality and independence of this set of ideas enable us to argue that Jung should not simply be considered as one of Freud's pupils and that the elements that I have described played an important role in the relationship, and in the eventual separation, between the two men.

During the years in which Freud and Jung worked together, the various aspects: political, transferential, professional, etc. evolved around this basic situation. Freud strongly believed that it was his destiny to be the founder of psychoanalysis, which meant he was entirely open to the prospect of having as his successor someone who would continue his work, but left no space for a plurality of fundamental ideas, nor for the possibility of a co-foundation. These were interpreted by Freud as a schismatic attitude on Jung's part and, as such, were received with bitterness and resentment. Over 80 years after that split, and in the light of the considerations which I have attempted to express, it seems to me that their relationship should be viewed, rather, as the ‘Chronicle of a Separation Foretold’. " (pp. 284-285)

Pier Claudio Devescovi (2000). At the Origins of Jungian Thought: Culture and Method. Elements of a Separation'. Psychoanalysis and History, Vol. 2, pp. 277-286

James Grotstein Introduces the Concept of Projective Transidentification

"I proffer the following statements:

(a) Intersubjective projective identification constitutes not only the operation of Klein's theory of projective identification as an unconscious, omnipotent, intrapsychic phantasy (occurring only within the unconscious of the projecting subject) but also two other process: (1) conscious and/or preconscious modes of sensorimotor induction and/or evocation or prompting techniques (mental, physical, verbal, posturing or priming, ‘nudging’) on the part of the projecting subject, followed by (2) spontaneous empathic simulation in the receptive object of the subject's experience who is already inherently equipped (programmed) to empathize with it. So far I am discussing projective identification in metapsychological theory. From the perspective of experience, however, the projecting subject feels that he has rid himself of bad (or good) emotional contents, and now believes that the object is the self or indistinguishable from it in regard to the projected parts—and, experientially, the object may concur that it has become affected.

(b) The projecting subject and the object of projection constitute two separate self-activating systems, and the interpersonal process should consequently be renamed ‘projective transidentification’ to designate its unique transpersonal mode so as to contrast it with the unconscious phantasy of intrapsychic projective identification proper.

(c) A corollary of the preceding view is that one can never project into another individual per se, only into one's image (internal object representation) of them— and then attempt to manipulate that image in unconscious phantasy as if it were the external object that was being manipulated. This idea is but another way of stating that the objects we encounter in our daily lives are fraught with personal transferences from our unconscious.

(d) Consequently, projective transidentification would function by establishing an inductive resonance between the internal object images formed by the projecting subject, on one hand, and those counterpart images formed by the external object of the subject, on the other.

(e) Projective identification into the object-image is followed by an introjection by the projecting subject of the now projectively transformed image of the object, which ultimately lands in the subject's superego and ego upon introjection. If hatred were projected, the subject would experience a hateful superego and a hated ego respectively.

(f) Projection from the Kleinian/Bionian points of view is inseparable from and identical with projective identification, but they are distinguished from each other in various different ways in the mainstream American view." (pp. 1059-1060)

　
　

James Grotstein (2005). ‘Projective transidentification: An extension of the concept of projective identification’. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, Vol. 86, pp. 1051-1069

Marcus West on Jung's Perspectives on the Ego

Abstract: "This paper explores some aspects of the narrowness of Jung's usage of the term ego and the consequences which are understood to follow there from. Jung is understood to see the ego as a surface phenomenon and, essentially, as the focal point of consciousness, not recognizing its potential to function more broadly, deeply, and unconsciously. Furthermore, although he does recognize the ego as ‘the total conscious personality’ his use of the term frequently does not reflect that definition. Whilst Jung's analysis of the narrowly functioning ego is enlightening and groundbreaking, he treats this narrow functioning as if it is characteristic of the ego itself, ascribing any ‘broad functioning’ primarily to the Self. This narrow use of the term ego, and the corresponding use of the term Self, are understood to have significant consequences for clinical practice, including leading the analyst into an over-identification with the patient and a loss of the analyst's sense of self. It is also understood to lead to difficulties dealing with more disturbed individuals, to stuck and broken down analyses, to wear and tear on the analyst and, potentially, splits between the different schools of analytical psychology. These concerns all represent difficulties with working in the transference, and Jung's own experience of this is briefly explored."

Introduction: "The ego has something of a bad name within analytical psychology as, whilst Jung was adamant about its necessity (e.g., Jung 1916, paras. 181-188), even arguing for it as a requisite element of spiritual experience (e.g., Jung 1929, para. 506; Jung 1954c, para. 774 & Jung 1934/1954, para. 520), he also described it, variously, as ‘small’ and ‘feeble’ (Jung 1937, para. 145), ‘futile and ridiculous’ (Jung 1955, para. 284), and saw ‘mere ego-life’ as ‘inadequate and unsatisfactory’ (Jung 1926, para. 645), and ‘petty and oversensitive’ (Jung 1928, para. 275). This paper aims to demonstrate that Jung works from a very narrow and superficial model of the ego, often not even consistent with his own definition of it as the conscious personality (Jung 1951a, paras. 1 & 7), and that he wrongly takes this narrow definition as characteristic of the ego itself. The paper will further suggest that the ego can be seen to function more broadly, deeply and unconsciously than Jung supposes. This broadly functioning ego encompasses and reflects all elements of the personality, including coming to know that the ‘I’ is attendant upon an autonomous, unconsciously functioning core self experienced as other and ‘not-I'; in other words, ‘the "not-I" is also who I am'.

The second part of the paper suggests certain ramifications for the practice of analytical psychology which are understood to follow, potentially, from such a narrow definition; for example, clinical difficulties relating to an over-identification with the patient and a loss of sense of self (as my original title had it: ‘There you are, but where did I go?'); difficulties dealing with more disturbed individuals; stuck, broken down, and sometimes abusive analyses, and to wear and tear on the analyst. I will also be looking at the difficulties Jung experienced with certain of his patients in this light. I will suggest, speculatively, that this under-emphasis on the ego can be seen to be responsible for some of the splits in analytical psychology, for example between those who follow Jung's practice of seeing patients less frequently and those who work more intensively with patients.

All these are serious concerns, with serious consequences for both patient and analyst. This paper was first given at the IAAP Congress in Cape Town, South Africa, in August 2007. At that Congress there was a panel discussion exploring ‘Reactions to Jung’, where Rod Anderson reported the results of a questionnaire he had sent out to his fellow South African health professionals. The questionnaire revealed that people saw Jung as (amongst other things) turning too quickly to the unconscious, not sufficiently recognizing the ego as a developmental achievement, and that these issues led to clinical difficulties.

These criticisms closely echo my own experience and concerns. I feel that it is vitally important to address these shadow aspects of analytical psychology, of which even those relatively unstudied in the field are aware (it may be argued, of course, that their criticisms come precisely because they have not studied Jung in depth, but I do not think this is necessarily the case).

My reason for making this critique is not only to address these shadow aspects of analytical psychology, however, but also to better utilize and value Jung's crucial insights which are at the heart of his work, for example, specifically, his critique of the (narrowly functioning) ego, his understanding of the autonomy of the unconscious, and his valuing and ‘locating’ of spiritual experience. I suggest that the understanding of a broadly functioning ego can offer a potential resolution of some of these difficulties." (pp. 367-368)

Marcus West (2008). The Narrow use of the Term Ego in Analytical Psychology: The ‘Not-I’ is Also who I am. J. Anal. Psychol., 53:367-388

Charles Strozier on the Preeminent Position of Freud and Kohut in the Development of Psychoanalysis

Conclusion: "There are two foundational (as opposed to merely important) thinkers in the history of psychoanalysis: Sigmund Freud and Heinz Kohut. Between 1965 and 1981, Kohut’s paradigm shift freed psychoanalytic thinking from the drive model, but retained its multifaceted perspectives and located practice firmly in an empathic context. Contemporary models and orientations, some more creative than others, from intersubjectivity, to the Relationalists, the constructivists, the post-modernists, and so on, have sought to extend aspects of Kohut’s work in their own terms. Such extensions are entirely appropriate and commendable. All of these contemporary thinkers in psychoanalysis, however, are children of Kohut. While Freud created the core ideas of psychoanalysis and its first form of practice, the shift in perspective brought by Kohut energizes in new ways a very relevant tradition that begins with William James, runs through Pierre Janet, finds expression in some of late Ferenczi and aspects of Carl Jung, and re-surfaces with thinkers like Donald Winnicott. For many years such thinking that is so relevant for understanding trauma and other issues ran like a submerged underground stream beneath the huge dyke of ego psychology. Kohut released the waters."

To read the remainder of the article "Robert Stolorow’s Myth of Originality" by Charles Strozier published on the International Psychoanalysis Blog at:
International Psychoanalysis

Corbett and Kugler on the Interface Between C.G. Jung and Heinz Kohut

"The question of the relationship between the concepts of the self in the work of Jung and Kohut has been debated by various Jungian analysts (for example, Jacoby, 1981; Schwartz-Salant, 1982; Redfearn, 1983; Samuels, 1985; Corbett, 1989). Jung's self-concept seems to have been largely ignored by self psychologists with one exception. Oremland (1985) equates Jung's self with the cosmos and suggests that Jungian therapy tends toward "mystical purpose." His essay presents a distorted view of Jung's self concept and Jungian therapy. Oremland believes that to compare Kohut and Jung would provide ammunition for Kohut's detractors. While Oremland is critical of interrelating Jung and Kohut, most other authors of comparative essays have focused constructively on the similarities and differences.

Jacoby (1981) for example, points out the following parallels between the two theorists. Kohut (1977) sees the self as the center of the psychological universe, in contrast to the more traditional Freudian view of the self as a content of the mental apparatus (that is, as a representation). This formulation is close to Jung's definition of the self. Kohut, again, bears a striking resemblance to Jung when he writes that man's ultimate goal might be "the realization, through his actions, of the blueprint for his life that had been laid down in his nuclear self" (p. 133). Further, when Kohut states that "our transient individuality also possesses a significance that extends beyond the borders of our life" (p. 180) and describes "cosmic narcissism" that transcends the boundaries of the individual (Kohut, 1966), he seems to be referring to the phenomenon Jung describes as the transpersonal/transcendant aspects of the self. This is further reflected in Kohut's view of the cognitive inpenetrability of the self per se. For Kohut (1977) only "its introspectively or empathically perceived psychological manifestations are open to us" (p. 311). Gordon (1980) also notes how Kohut (1977), while discussing Kafka and O'Neill, emphasizes man's search for wholeness and meaning, and thus is very close to Jung's association of the experience of the self with the discovery of meaning.

Schwartz-Salant (1982) believes that Kohut is attractive to Jungians because his approach his similar to Jung's synthetic or purposive attitude toward therapy. Because of Jung's opposition to the idea of psychic determinism, he characteristically adopts a "final" perspective in which the self is conceived of not simply as the sum or outcome of causal sequences and antecedent connections in the past, but also as prospective and purposive, apparently possessing a sense of future direction and intention. Hence, it cannot be analyzed purely historically. Jung (1971) maintained that no psychological fact about an individual can be explained in terms of causality alone. For many Jungians, the idea that the self points toward future development frees one from the tyranny of a psychology based purely on developmental vicissitudes. Kohut's (1966) description of the narcissistic transference, for example, is reminiscent of Jung's (1969c) insistence that the transference be understood not only in terms of its historical antecedents, but also in terms of its purposefulness.

A variety of theoretical differences also exist between Jung and Kohut. For example, one of the major differences between the two authors lies in their different theories of the origin of intrapsychic structure. For Kohut (1971) structuralization of the child's inner world is the result of the parental selfobject's empathic responsiveness to the child's innate needs, whose origin is not specified. Jung, on the other hand, postulates that the child is born with an a priori psychological matrix, out of which personal consciousness will emerge. This matrix is structured in characteristic ways (archetypes) that provide the potential for particular forms of experience, whose content is determined by the child's interaction with his specific environment. The image1 that Kohut uses to illustrate the creation of intrapsychic structure is that of eating and assimilating food, which is digested to become part of the person. For Kohut, if we eat hamburger, we do not become hamburger, because the substance of the empathic interaction is assimilated in a unique way. This process of digestion creates the building blocks that eventuate in the development of a self. To continue within this metaphor, for Jung the unconscious contains specifically configured "enzymes" that digest the person's psychic substances (experiences) taken in during the course of the person's life, resulting in the subjective experience of personal identity. These "enzymes" are given with the person's psychic anatomy and are not simply the product of the person's interacting with his selfobjects, although the quality of this interaction is important in modifying their effects on the growth of the person.

Other theoretical differences have been noted by various authors. Jacoby (1981), for example, points out that one major difference between the two theorists is in their focus on the "location" of self-experiences. Jung provides a wealth of intrapsychic symbolic descriptions of the self, while Kohut focuses more on the transference manifestations of the self, although it is clear that these are all intrapsychic phenomena for the person. Schwartz-Salant (1982) also highlights certain differences, noting how Kohut's references to the cosmic qualities of the self are "only metaphors of little significance," not referring to the transpersonal realm of Jung's self. Further, Schwartz-Salant believes Kohut's characterization of negative affects, such as rage, as disintegration products of the self, differs significantly from Jung's idea that the self intrinsically contains both dark and light aspects. (Kohut is, however, clear that a cohesive self may experience rage as a primary expression of itself rather than as a disintegration product.) Samuels (1985) points out that Kohut's self is created during psychic development, and this notion is antithetical to Jung's concept of the self as a priori, especially when Kohut indicates that the self forms at a point in time. Samuels compares Kohut's theory of a self that gradually coalesces from smaller units to the theory developed by Fordham (1976, 1985), a developmentally oriented Jungian who describes the baby as possessing an initially integrated self unit that unfolds or "deintegrates" because of the interaction of its innate organizing ability with environmental experiences. Fordham is clearly presenting Jung's view, as for example, when Jung (1966) writes that the "meaning and purpose (of self-realization) is the realization in all its aspects, of the personality originally hidden away in the embryonic germ-plasm, the production and unfolding of the original potential wholeness" (p. 110). Jung's and Fordham's idea of the unfolding of innate potential, like Kohut's concept of the blueprint, raises several important questions about the origin of the self: Is the self solely the result of developmental processes with no a priori structures? Is the self given a priori with the birth of the individual? Is the self the result of innate structures interacting over time with the environment? These questions will be taken up in the next section." (pp. 189-202)

Lionel Corbett and Paul Kugler (1989). Chapter 11: The Self in Jung and Kohut. Progress in Self Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 189-208