Jung's Forgotten Bridge

In 1921 two Books appeared that were to become psychological classics: C. G. Jung's Psychological Types and E. Kretschmer's Physique and Character. Yet, despite their proximity in time and similarity in theme, they were destined to live separate lives.

Jung was aware of the possibility of connecting his own typological work with that of Kretschmer's. In 1929, in a paper entitled ‘The significance of constitution and heredity on psychology’, he wrote:

I personally have the impression that some of Kretschmer's main types are not so far removed from certain of the basic psychological types I have enumerated. It is conceivable that at these points a bridge might be established between the physiological constitution and the psychological attitude. That this has not been done already may be due to the fact that the physiological findings are still very recent while, on the other hand investigation from the psychological side is very much more difficult and therefore less easy to understand. (JUNG 4)

But he could not pause to pursue this task. Fully engaged in his explorations of the unconscious, he rarely found the time to take up his pen in the cause of explaining his own psychological types, still less to attempt to relate them to Kretschmer's.

Almost forty years later the situation from the Jungian side still had not changed. C. A. Meier, in a wide-ranging talk on psychological types and individuation, said, ‘… It is rather a shame that this most genial contribution to psychiatry [Kretschmer's book] has never been decently evaluated in respect to its relation to Jungian psychology.' (MEIER 7).

This failure would have been of small moment if Jung's typology were simply an interesting footnote to his psychology. Then its relationship to Kretschmer's body types would simply have been a footnote to a footnote. However, much more is at stake here. Psychological typology is an integral part of analytical psychology and a highly distinctive and valuable way in which to view the wh