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.
Reviewing a collection of Jung's writings, the distinguished psychologist Liam Hudson wrote that “Jung has been banished comprehensively by the good burghers of British academic life [as] a charlatan” Jung's work had been “comprehensively rejected.” However, noted Hudson-a well-informed observer of the febrile psychoanalytic scene-much of Jung's banishment (a worldwide phenomenon, in fact) had to do with the efforts of the psychoanalytic “secret committee set up by Ernest Jones too ensure that defectors were not taken seriously” (Hudson, 1983).
In my summary of Hudson's notice of the Jung collection, we immediately see some of the major themes that an issue of Psychoanalytic Review devoted to an introduction to today's “Jung” and his ongoing influence must address: the relationship with Freud and the effects of that in terms of professional politics; the question of Jung's credibility, reliability, and probity; the reasons why many solid academics and psychoanalysts worldwide will have nothing to do with the man, his works, and his followers.
Over the past four years, I have spoken on Jungian and post-Jungian psychology and analysis at 18 universities in 7 countries. Mostly, this has been in the new departments and centers of psychoanalytic studies that have been set up since the Lacan-inspired return to Freud brought psychoanalysis back to the universities of the West. Jung and the post-Jungians are conspicuous by their absence from reading lists and curricula in the vast majority of these courses save as an important schismatic element in the history of psychoanalysis. However, mostly because of an enthusiastic interest on the part of the students, openings do exist to talk in these centers about the post-Jungian issue, and I have relished the opportunity and learned much from it. In spite of the ambivalent attitude of the