Internet Discussion Forum Summary

‘Institutional conflicts in Jungian analysis’ by Kenneth Eisold

 J. Anal. Psychol., April 2001,  46, 2,  335-353↗

Kenneth Eisold's paper led to a lively and interesting discussion with over 40 postings. There were a number of different threads to the discussion, amongst them Jung's metapsychology, vocabulary and language, prejudice, institutional splits and Eisold's suggested split in Jung's identity between the ‘professional’ and the ‘spiritual healer’.

Massimo Giannoni began the discussion by pointing out that Jung and Freud's different meta-theoretical backgrounds underlay their personal and institutional conflicts, with Jung using the ‘verstehen’ (understanding) method, whereas Freud used the ‘erklaeren’ method (to explain from outside). ‘Now there are many forms of psychoanalysis’, said Giannoni, ‘some of them very different from the original. For example self-psychology refutes drive theory and claims empathy as a tool for understanding the patient from within (Kohut). As Mitchell said, now a new dialogue between the many forms of psychoanalysis is possible and analytical psychology may be one of these forms of psychoanalysis’. Marcus West said that he was interested in the different clinical outcomes that follow from these different metapsychologies and how these may underlie the institutional splits. He cited, on the one hand, ‘those who identify with their analysands, adopting concordant counter-transference positions (equivalent to the ‘verstehen’ method) which promotes contact with the patient's self, deepening of affect, states of participation mystique and even numinous and mystical experiences’; whilst, on the other hand, ‘those who adopt more complementary countertransference positions (equivalent to the ‘erklaeren’ method - explaining from outside) which leads to contact with the ego and a groundedness, rationality and (potentially) a boundaried respect for the other’. Giannoni expanded his analysis of the ‘verstehen’ and ‘erklaeren’ methods using Dilthey's