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.
The ‘thoughts’ from David Black stem from his background with the Association of Jungian Analysts and express this viewpoint of analytical psychology. The ‘exclamation mark’ of Dr Schwartz-Salant, who trained in Zürich in the Sixties, refers to his ‘never having heard the word transference in any clinical seminar during his training’.
Black begins by pointing out that Jungian analysts in Britain have separated into at least three groups, and that, as a result, communication between each group, and the sharing of intellectual resources, have been lost. He then focuses on the split between Freud and Jung which, he suggests, resulted in Freud's developing a scientific base, whereas Jung developed a school: Freud colonised the central area of analytical territory (childhood, instincts and transference) and developed the potential for scientific growth through observation; Jung played down these central elements, trying to compensate by developing the ideas of the collective unconscious, psychological types, etc. Freud's thoughts developed, but Jung remained ‘like a monolith with no sense in Jungian analysis of a developing tradition’.
Black continues his comparisons between a science (as he designates psychoanalysis) and a school, and implies that Jung, as a visionary leader of a school, has become petrified and that aspects of his theory are asserted as fact, as dogma. Black sees the title of the first volume of the Library of Analytical Psychology—Analytical Psychology: A Modern Science—as an aspiration rather than as a description. Jung's thought, he says, is essentially visionary, not scientific, and was fully worked out by Jung, so that it is ‘a blind alley in the sense that, as it stands, it is completed’.
In order to consider the future of analytical psychology, Black borrows Andrew Samuels's scheme of three schools—developmental, classical, and archetypal. The classical school is unable to develop and the archetypal school is dangerous. The only hope lies in the de