The Author Replies

Hillman disciples become angrily defensive if others do not worship at the same shrine. Until now we have seen very little in the way of critical discourse. Hillman has been a large presence in Jungian psychology for over four decades, and apart from a few comments by Odajnyk and Giegerich, there has been a total absence of critique. My papers are the first sustained critique of his position. Why the long silence and absence of discussion? One answer is evident from the American responses: hands off our original thinker. Many have feared reprisals from Hillman's imitators and followers, who are a powerful and united cohort, especially in the United States. Any criticism is reductively interpreted as ‘envious hostility’, ‘acting out’ or ‘negative transference polemic’ (Kapacinskas). Disciples psychologize any criticism as defects in the critics, faults in their perception.

It is significant that those caught in a ‘positive transference’ to Hillman don't see this as a problem. Rarely, or never, do disciples consider how dangerous a positive transference might be, spinning around in their psychological web without connection to reality. We are dealing with dynamics similar to those found in religious cults. The guru is beyond reproach, and critical commentary is dismissed as a subjective confession on the part of the critic. This used to be found in Dallas, but has relocated to Pacifica Institute in California. We've read Richard Noll's The Jung Cult but someone needs to write The Hillman Cult, as there will be much more to explore once the second volume of the biography is released and people begin to reflect on the legacy.

Kapacinskas wants to tell us his life story rather than focus on my substantive argument. Ironically, despite his hostile tone, his response actually supports my critique. I argue that Hillman's archetypal psychology is a flight of poetic fantasy, ungrounded, lacking an awareness of the necessity of the developmental perspective. Kapacinskas began un