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.
In his Foreword to Claire Douglas's book, David Rosen, the Editor of the Fay Series, points out that he has commissioned a number of works on the psychology of the feminine because, in his view, ‘the archetypal feminine is the only hope for humankind individually and collectively’ (p. xi). Rosen refers to himself as a ‘feminist and part of the Motherline’ (p. xii). Claire Douglas also presents as a passionate feminist; however her book makes us realize how different Jungian ‘feminism’ is from mainstream feminism. In fact, the two discourses are so dissimilar that I am not sure Jungian writing can be called ‘feminist’. For Douglas, as for Rosen, the interest is not so much in the political or social liberation of women, as it is in the psychological liberation of a feminine principle. This principle is based on an archetype that is found in men and women, and hence the liberation of the feminine involves both sexes. But mainstream feminism does not think along these lines. It is based on a social constructivist view of the world, and it does not believe in Jung's ‘archetypes’. In its view, archetypes are one more fantasy construct of the patriarchal system, and they are not respected. Moreover, to suggest that men are as oppressed as women is a cardinal sin in feminist theory, since it believes that men are not only in charge of the social system but they also call the shots in terms of psychological constructions and spiritual ideals. The notion that men are as suppressed as women by a lost ‘feminine principle’ does not compute with contemporary feminist theory.
Jungian ‘feminism’ needs to take up these challenges and argue a case for itself. However, it tends not to do this. It states its case, based on the worldview of Jung, but such works appear as baffling to feminism, which does not share these premises. The notion that men and women could be oppressed by a patriarchal consciousness is difficult to comprehend, unless we accept the notion that the Western ego has