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.
With the publication of Dr. Swan's account of Tina Keller's analyses with both C. G. Jung and Toni Wolff, Journal readers are given a valuable window into the practices of analytical psychology in its pioneering days; a debt of gratitude is owed Dr. Swan for bringing forth some new details of this unique portrait. Her paper is best read alongside the récit James Hillman constructed out of Dr. Keller's autobiography and his correspondence with Keller published in Spring 1982. Together they offer readers a rare chance to compare and contrast in detail the way each of these analysts (Jung & Wolff) responded to the same analysand. In addition, some of the multi-layered communications that transpired among the three participants in this drama and the ways these communications subsequently impacted all three can be inferred from the accounts.
The strictly historical approach taken by Swan, which she identifies as part of the ‘New Jung Scholarship’ (Swan 2005, Chapter 1, p. 2) is well bounded and helps to delimit her contribution. Remaining true to the historical facts is essential for any attempt at comprehending past events including the early world of Jungian analysis, and broad generalizations from a single study such as the one under discussion here should be avoided. However, lack of reflection beyond reporting the historical events requires readers to assess our reactions and understanding of these events, especially if we are to consider their clinical significance, both at the time they occurred, being cautious to avoid anachronistic clinical criticisms, and for the import they have on contemporary practice.
As there is another response in this issue of the Journal which looks at this account from different perspectives, including the transfer-ence/countertransference dynamics, the present discussion will explore the role of active imagination in these analyses and how the practice depicted here compares with contemporary views. However, active imagination done in t