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.
Michael Palmer's book, Freud and Jung on Religion, is exactly what it says it is: a study of Freud's and Jung's psychologies and their understandings of religion. As the author points out in his foreword, his primary intention is to provide two separate accounts that will help those seeking detailed information about either Freud or Jung. Each account ends with his own critique, which is “in no way partisan—I am neither neo-Freudian nor neo-Jungian” (p. x). And he has, throughout and in each case, stayed close to the more accessible versions of each man's Collected Works.
When an author undertakes a project of this sort—describing in depth the thought of these two great men on this formidable subject, and then evolving comparisons—we want to know two things: first, are the comparisons informative and accurate, and, second, in what ways do the discussions advance the understandings of these two figures beyond what we already know?
With regard to the first question, this study is unexceptionable. The two expositions are thorough, clearly written, and accurate and the critiques are suggestive. On the other hand, the second question must be answered in the negative. There is nothing at all new in this book. Most of the information on which its claims are based was generated before the mid-1960s, or thereabouts, and some of it even before that time. Indeed, this book closely resembles in its approach, aims, and conclusions many of the comprehensive summaries of the systems that were so popular during the postwar period (the 1950s and early 1960s).
But that is not all. Although much has been learned about Freud and Jung—and also about religion—since that time, none of this knowledge appears in Palmer's study either. He gives no indication that he knows of its existence. But it would be wrong to attribute this omission to carelessness of any kind, for he is clearly well informed about the works of both figures. In short, I do not