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.
Compared to the theoretical and clinical disputes that have characterized psychoanalysis, best illustrated by the ‘Controversial Discussions’ in the British Psychoanalytical Society that took place during the second World War, and more recently between American ego psychology and British object relations theory, analytical psychology has suffered mercifully less from outright, tendentious and longstanding disputes, despite the inevitable occurrences of some painful splits in local areas and some periods of deep disagreements across theoretical traditions along the way. Perhaps for those who may have first hand experience of such negative moments, this may be a surprising thought. But on the whole, analytical psychology has seemed more able to contain and tolerate controversy by allowing for and accepting a variety of Jungian approaches, from classical and archetypal through to developmental and object relations. The breadth and depth of the 50th Anniversary Conference, and the wonderful richness that we have experienced during it, attest to this capacity to contain various traditions under one overarching theoretical umbrella with multiple facets—the rich tradition and multicoloured palette we call analytical psychology. I consider that one of the most important vehicles of this beneficial inheritance has undoubtedly been the long and fruitful relationship—50 years' long—between the Journal of Analytical Psychology (JAP), the outstanding professional and clinical Jungian publication par excellence (in subscription figures alone, well above comparable journals) in the Jungian world, and the IAAP, which stands as the organizational container for Jungian analytic training societies and for fostering Jungian interests, and developments, throughout the globe. It is not a partnership, in the sense of a marriage between the two organizations—they are very different and serve different purposes. But the long and collegial relationship, with many colleagues involved in both