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.
This paper is a response to Andrew Samuels's ‘The transcendent function in politics: NO!’ (2010). In that paper he makes a number of criticisms to support his argument that the transcendent function is not appropriate for political and social development. Whilst a number of his criticisms are valid, they are misdirected because they are against one-sidedness or identification with a single position, which are not features of the transcendent function but problems that it overcomes. To make the counter argument, this paper draws on oft-overlooked aspects of Jung's book Psychological Types, empirical research, contemporary leadership theory, and practical examples to show that the transcendent function's omission from political debate can maintain and exacerbate social inequity and the political divisions that might otherwise be bridged. The transcendent function is highly relevant to politics and can help achieve deeper and longer-lasting change than a one-sided approach. It is one of the core aspects of analytical psychology that has the potential to make innovative and transformational contributions to political discourse.