Re: Roger Kaufman's Letter to the JAP

I want to thank Mr. Kaufman for being the stimulus for this discussion, generating a valuable opportunity to give more clarity to some thoughts that have been perhaps vague or confusing. His letter to the Journal highlights some significant points; particulars that perhaps may both unify and differentiate approaches to this essential subject, one that is at the very forefront in psychology today. I also want to thank the Journal for recognizing the inherent value to our field in such a discussion and providing space and encouragement for the exploration of these issues. These are exciting times in the development of approaches to the subject of homosexuality, as we expand our awareness of civil rights, relational dynamics, the meanings expressed through the Erotic, and the renewal of professional psychology. Of particular interest to me is the delineation of the uniqueness offered in analytical psychology as an orientation to these evolutions. I do hope that this kind of discussion will help differentiate how a perspective rooted in Jung's phenomenological approach contrasts not only with other analytical theories, but also from contemporary psychological ideas in the helping professions.

The observation that Mr. Kaufman makes about the paucity of material on homosexuality in the JAP these years may be an expression of the strong tendency amongst analytical psychologists not to speak with a unified or monolithic voice. So while Mr. Kaufman scolds that we should be more like other groups, we simply are not. Certainly people with same-gender attractions have been drawn to Jung's work from the very beginning, finding space to develop strong voices, collegial respect, and a real home in the community of analytical psychologists. What has not emerged is a unitary voice on the subject, a ‘Jungian view’ on homosexuality. To me that is an accomplishment. My own intent is not to define homosexuality (or any sexuality), but to articulate my sense of an analytic approach for re