You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
We are the inheritors of the split between Freud and Jung, and we know that the theoretical issues have not yet been resolved. A fully satisfying analytical model, providing a synthesis of the complexities experienced in the analytical process, has not yet emerged. Analysts of all schools still present their approximations, and one senses a considerable degree of overlap, but always there is the problem of the different terminologies, and their translation. Analytical psychology is based on Jung's brilliant and original work on the nature, the structure and the dynamics of the self. Research has focused for some time now on the problems of understanding the development of the self in infancy and childhood, and of the part played by the parents; how, for instance, they have facilitated the processes, met needs, mediated archetypal experiences, and how in these early interactions the basis has been laid for future disorders of the self. Theoretical progress has inevitably meant the integration of valuable work by psychoanalysts on these early developmental years.
It is of particular interest to see, as though in reverse, a situation where clinical experience has forced a psychoanalyst to propose radical re-evaluations of psychoanalytic theory, because of his conviction that a psychology of the self is necessary and must be recognised as of primary importance. He is concerned to preserve a continuity in the growth of analytical theory, and insists that the old insights are not to be discarded, and that there are many aspects of the work where they are still adequate. Nevertheless, he shows clearly, at the same time, where he believes them to have significant limitations. To preserve what he feels is the best of classical drive psychology, he proposes two theories of the self, which can be held alternatively or simultaneously. He holds that the