One Psychoanalysis or Many?

DEAR DR HAYLEY,

I regret that I have to take issue with Robert Wallerstein over his remarks on analytical psychology in his paper 'One psychoanalysis or many?' (Int. J. Psychoanal., 69: 1). The regret is due to my admiration for Dr Wallerstein's careful and crucial work of critical comparison and appropriate synthesis of the various schools of psychoanalysis. My own book Jung and the Post-Jungians had a similar project and I hope my authorship of that book qualifies me as the 'thoughtful and knowledgeable student of Jung's scientific corpus' (p. 13) sought by Dr Wallerstein to substantiate William Goodheart's views and, hence, by implication, Dr Wallerstein's own conclusions about analytical psychology which are dependent upon his reading of Dr Goodheart's paper.

It should not be thought that I am an ideological opponent of Dr Goodheart. Rather, there is a substantial question mark over whether Dr Wallerstein's summary of Dr Goodheart's paper is accurate. However, I am in complete agreement with Dr Wallerstein that the introduction of a term like 'Jungian psychoanalysis' is undesirable; my position on this and related matters is incorporated into what follows.

In Jung and the Post-Jungians I made the claim that Jung could be seen as a pioneer of many developments in psychoanalysis since, say, 1935. Jung's work, and that of the post-Jungians, would then have to be regarded as less way-out than it is sometimes represented to be. It would be ludicrous to argue that Jung's positions were as evolved or worked through as the relevant psychoanalytic contribution but his prescience is so marked that it seemed justifiable to me to claim that, in a covert sense, psychoanalysis has become 'Jungian'.

Let me give a few instances of what I mean. I hope that these examples show that it is unlikely, to say the least, that analytical psychologists deny 'the facts of transference and resistance'. The