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.
I appreciated Andrew Samuels' comprehensive and stimulating presentation both for its contents and the methodology of SWOT. It made me think about what I would understand as the SWOT of Jungian analysis. I agree with him in many points, but there are some differences. Instead of commenting on Andrew's stimulating points first and bringing my own understanding of SWOT afterwards, I will allow myself to present my own analysis of the SWOT of Jungian analysis and refer to his points within my framework.
It is probably needless to say that my response is influenced by both my cultural and training background. I am embedded in an East Asian and Japanese understanding of psyche, although I lived for 11 years in Switzerland. I was trained as a Jungian analyst in the Zurich institute, which has a totally different training model from that of the Society of Analytical Psychology (SAP). In addition, my viewpoint is strongly influenced by my recent involvement with the International Association for Analytical Psychology (IAAP).
There are various strengths of Jungian analysis. But I would like to start with and emphasize the pre-modern understanding of psyche as open system in Jungian psychology or in Jung's own experiences.
What is fascinating about Jung and his strength is his pre-modern, archaic understanding of psyche. According to Memories, Dreams, Reflections (MDR), Jung sat on a stone when he was seven to nine years old and asked himself:
I sat down on this stone, and then began an imaginary game that went something like this: ‘I am sitting on top of this stone and it is underneath’. But the stone also could say ‘I’ and think: ‘I am lying here on this slope and he is sitting on top of me’. The question then arose: ‘Am I the one who is sitting on the stone, or am I the stone on which he is sitting?’