Correspondence

Despite the thematic overlap, Marvin Spiegelman's paper and my own, ‘Analysis and pluralism: the politics of psyche’, both published in the January 1989 issue of this Journal, were written quite separately. However, we do know and respect each other, have similar cultural backgrounds and, in our quite different ways, have worried away at the same images and issues. I was honoured to be asked to comment on his contribution to the book he edited, Jungian Analysts: their Visions and Vulnerabilities (1988). I found so often when I was writing Jung and the Post-Jungians (1985) that there was much in common to be found in relation to Jung's work on the part of analysts who would not otherwise be much in agremeent.

I puzzled for some time over how to reply to Spiegelman's paper, for it is written in a rather unusual style for the Journal. In the end, I have opted for a low-key, even pedestrian, offering. This is because I have already responded in a more passionate manner in a public setting. What happened was this: the Independent Group of Analytical Psychologists had invited Spiegelman to lecture and he, in turn, invited me to respond to the paper he gave them (identical to the published paper). The meeting really was a meeting and I don't think anyone who was there will forget it. It felt as if the psyche was speaking through us, and I cannot recall the detail of what was said so as to include it in a letter. Perhaps such an encounter cannot be transferred on to paper anyway, but that is the background to the pedestrianism referred to.

I will divide this brief response into two parts. First, some reactions to, and clarifications of, his heartfelt and ultimately encouraging critique and, second, some thoughts on the problem of the one and the many.

The writing of the post-Jungian book was indeed, as Spiegelman puts it, a finding of the ‘fire within me’. Judging from reviews and other reactions, the book is both reliable and comprehensive, destined for a career in the teachi