Samuels, Andrew. Jung and the Post-Jungians. London and Boston:  Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985, Pp.  x + 293.

… Its enormous body of knowledge serves only as a basis for Samuels's own comparative approach, his stimulating search for parallels and divergences. One of his concerns is to find common denominators in the apparently wide differences, even splits, which fuel polemics between present-day Jungian analysts. The author also wants to do something about the credibility gap which still partly surrounds Jung and to show where and to what extent psychoanalysis and psychotherapy today are ‘Jungian’ without their exponents realizing it. He gives a list of fifteen essential points which demonstrate that recent changes and developments in Freudian psychoanalysis reflect a ‘Jungian’ reorientation, in line with Roazen's statement that ‘few responsible figures in psychoanalysis would be disturbed today if an analyst were to present views identical to Jung's in 1913’ (p. 9).…

… At the same time, the author takes great pains to avoid any rigidity in this classification by stating that the schools overlap to some extent, that individuals may fall between schools, and that differences of opinion may be found within the schools themselves. And — most important he wants to emphasize that all analytical psychologists are likely to use ‘all these theories and are interested in all these clinical areas at sometime and with some patients’ (p. 17). In my opinion, this is so only to a limited extent, because of the scope of each analyst's training, the focus of his interest, and the limitations of his practical skill. But Samuels is right in maintaining that these schools represent the trends in the post-Jungian world.