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.
Hon. President, Association of Jungian Analysts (A.T.)
Sir,
In his article on ‘Analytical psychology in England’ (this Journal, 24, no. 4), Dr Fordham states that ‘recently a separate group of Zürich-orientated analysts has set up its own organisation’ (p. ).
By this statement Dr Fordham tries to perpetuate a myth which has no basis whatsoever in reality.
What does ‘Zürich-orientated’ mean? What is this fabulous being called ‘Zürich’? Why persist with the meaningless empty phrase of an opposition, ‘London-Zürich’, particularly as Dr Fordham admits in the same article that ‘there does not seem to be a serious difference in principle in the two approaches of London and Zürich’.
Fordham's insistence on his pet red herring of ‘Zürich-orientation’ is a rationalisation of his continuous remarkable lack of insight into (or maybe his unwillingness to understand) the true reasons for the foundation of the Association of Jungian Analysts (A.T.). Perhaps they can be best expressed in the shortest possible way by saying that the members of the Association of Jungian Analysts regard themselves (and are so regarded by a great number of people) not as ‘Zürich-orientated’ but as ‘Jung-orientated’, or, if you prefer to put it differently, as ‘Jung-centred’.
Sir,
Gerhard Adler takes me to task for referring to his group as ‘Zürich-orientated’.
My article expressed a view about the history of analytical psychology in England and it may be that I did not explain the basis for my remark sufficiently clearly. The distinction between the London school and that of Zürich was based upon my knowledge of the two schools and the very evident conflict between them expressed, often forcibly, at International Congresses. I considered that the differences exhibited in London between the Society of Analytical Psychology and the Association of Jungian