X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:24:09 PDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Rick Adams <adamsr@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Anima
              "ADLIN%UTKVX.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU" at Sep 4, 92 6:00 pm

Rich,

	As it happens, I'm _not_ a Jungian, nor did I say I was - I stated
that I had a strong background in it both theoretically and in an applied
sense, a rather different statement. In actuality, the background came from
both academic studies and from having worked as a counselor in a Jungian
oriented environment for several years.

	I totally agree that Jung's theories leave a great deal to be
desired with respect to integration with scientific fact - as, of course, do
those of Freud (to quote a former professor "Freudians are marvelous - every
museum should have one one display."). Despite the antiquarian nature of his
theories, however, I cannot totally discount many of the underlying concepts
(which admittedly must be interpreted in light of modern science to be
valid). Aristotle based most of his philosophy on a set of highly erroneous
assumptions about the nature of reality - but that doesn't negate his
contribution to modern thought, nor does it invalidate his formal logic.

	My arguments do not so much focus on validating Jung as on
invalidating claims that any one form of psychology (i.e., the
cognitive-behavioral perspectives under discussion) is somehow "superior" to
all others. Such arguments are not only inaccurate, but they tend to cause
even further boundries between individuals focusing on different
perspectives than already exist. One can argue just as convincingly that the
medical model is the appropriate one rather than the cognitive one, and
indeed that IS the argument of the Psychiatric profession. Most
psychologists dispute that model, yet take precisely the same attitude when
their own chosen perspective is under discussion.

	I _have_ used a Jungian approach highly effectively in dealing with
clients, particularly when working with women who have been victims of abuse
or domestic violence, an area frequently not amenable to cognitive
approaches. I have also used the tools of cognitive psychology, behaviorism,
and other disciplines when they proved valuable.

	By an eclectic approach, I was very much refering to precisely the
same type of approach you refer to when discussing "practical eclecticism,"
as you may have noted from my reference to its value in APPLIED settings.
Despite this, however, I tend to disagree with you in regard to a
theoretical eclecticism. As I understand you, you are indicating that a
commitment to a single discipline from a theoretical perspective is somehow
"better" than to hold a more broad-based view. I disagree. To me, the
development of an individual psychological world-view is necessary to the
clinician who wishes to be prepared to approach a variety of clients and who
will need a variety of tools to do so. Obviously, it is necessary to have a
"root" theoretical perspective upon which to "hang" the other perspectives,
(which in my case is an analytic one), but I find it FAR more valuable to
extract those portions of the other disciplines which have potential value
and make them a part of that gestalt than to simply assume them to be
inappropriate. Just as I find the use of analytic techniques beneficial
under certain circumstances, I find (for example) Bowen's family systems
theory to be far more relevent under other circumstances. In order to use
the technology Bowen (or Jung, Freud, Skinner, or anyone else) provides,
however, I must first understand and accept as valid those portions of their
theory upon which the techniques are based - otherwise their use is absurd.
But if I DO accept those portions of their theories (perhaps being forced to
modify the language to bring them 'up-to-date'), then they have a valid
place in my overall Weltanschauung. Ultimately, through this process, I will
(hopefully) acheive a psychological world view with which I am totally
comfortable, and which will serve me (and more importantly, serve my
clients) under any circumstances in which I would require it. If this is
"theoretical eclecticism" then I willingly accept the title.

	Two final points. First, while Jung's theories are based on
Lamarckian concepts, they are (as Stevens, Samuels, and others have
demonstrated) easily translated to more appropriate evolutionary terms.
In fact I demonstrated that very fact once in a rather extensive paper which
related the Jungian concepts to those presented in Richard Dawkins
_The_Selfish_Gene_ for a professor with a background in biopsychology.

	Second is your comment about Jung invoking spirituality rather than
science. Despite being an atheist, I still find that statement troubling.
There is no more relevance in Freud's almost pathological abhorrance of
spirituality than there is in Jimmy Swaggart's claim that "psychologists are
the Devil's servants." Since many very well respected scientists are
unwilling to deny the possibility of spiritual realities, to blythly assert
that they have no relevence to psychology is a bit patronizing. It is not
only possible to rephrase Jung in modern terms, it is a particularly
profitable exercise to to so - in terms of expanded understanding.

	BTW, your assumption that I've "dismissed the constructs called id,
ego, and superego" is a bit premature.  If you'll re-read my messages, you
will discover that at no time did I make any comment about these Freudian
concepts whatever, either in support OR in denial. It is perfectly possible
to accept a great deal of Freud without rejecting Jung out of hand - After
all, Jung himself accepted his principles for years and seperated from him
only because Freud was unwilling to admit that sexuality was not the SOLE
basis of behavior - a view that Freud himself finally came to years later.

	Peace,

	Rick


--
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\  Reliable and affordable public access to
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \  telecommunications services is the
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  first step toward a global community.
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  Send Email for files on GEnie and Netcom.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU