Correspondence

Why are C. G. Jung's family and inner circle impeding Richard Noll's investigation into Jung's alleged falsification of data, as reported in The New York Times, 3 June 1995? Having enjoyed enhanced individuation through Jungian therapy, I find myself with no psychological need to protect Jung from such an inquiry. The defensiveness of the inner circle, however, indicates the limitations of Jungian therapy and lends credence to Noll's theories about a cult of Jung.

If Jung in fact deliberately falsified data, all his writings will have to be read with more scepticism than otherwise. But this would by no means disprove the importance and validity of all his thought, much of which has been tested and found useful both in clinical practice and in building an empirical theory of human psychology. For example, I recently published an article showing the clinical and empirical relevance of androgyny to the psychology of militarism, based on correlations between personality self assessment and policy preferences. Published in Political Psychology (Vol. 16, No. 2), a leading interdisciplinary journal of its kind, my findings are in no way affected by Noll's inquiry even though I explicitly cite Jungian psychotherapy. The family and inner circle are excessively insecure about the value of Jung's work, which does not need to be protected from free inquiry and scholarly debate.

From Leo La Rosa:

The heirs of C. G. Jung have asked me to convey to you their following statement regarding the letter of Dr D'Agostino:

Statement for the attention of the Journal of Analytical Psychology

The editors of the Journal of Analytical Psychology have requested the executive committee of the joint heirs of C. G. Jung to make a statement on Dr B. D'Agostino's letter concerning Dr Noll's request for access to certain documents.

So far, Dr Noll has on no occasion been denied access to any documents by us. Furthermore, no such request for access has been submitted to us. Dr Noll an