Letter

Dear Sir:

I found myself able to agree with David Black's emotional reaction when, in his recent review of a book by Jungian analyst Rosemary Gordon, he wrote of

non-Jungian thinkers … almost invariably (being) quoted as having paralleled insights by Jung, which paradoxically creates a kind of irritation, as if Jung were a spoiled child who can never be left out of any congratulations (1994, p. 1292).

I have often been similarly irritated by claims for primacy in terms of who discovered what first. However, in more thoughtful vein, every once in a while I do feel that questions should be raised when an omission is all too blatant. I wonder why Winnicott's urging of by now over thirty years ago has gone unheeded. He wrote in his review of Jung's Memories, Dreams, Reflections (1963):

The publication of this book provides psychoanalysts with a chance, perhaps the last chance they will have, to come to terms with Jung. If we fail to come to terms with Jung we are self-proclaimed partisans, partisans in a false cause (1964, p. 450).

Jonathan Dunn's recent, excellent paper in this journal, ‘Intersubjectivity in psychoanalysis: a critical review’ (1995), provides us with a case illustration, so to speak. I admired and learned from his inspiring study of what has come to be called intersubjectivity. The bibliography of well over two full pages was most impressive. However, conspicuous by their absence are any references whatsoever to Jung's writings of over fifty years ago on this analytical phenomenon. In his book The Psychology of the Transference (1946), Jung discusses at length the following diagram:

This diagram demonstrates Jung's understanding of the analytical process. He deployed alchemical metaphors to underscore the interaction of both participants in the process. As Samuels puts it:

The thesis is that alchemical imagery is very well suited indeed to capture the almost impossible essence of analysis or any other deep, human connection: the play between interpersonal rel