X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:03:42 PDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Rick Adams <adamsr@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Anima
              92 6:02 pm

==> Sorry Rick, I'm not sure I see what you mean.  For those of you looking
==> for psychometrically valid alternatives to animus/anima consider the
==> similar constructs of sociotropy and autonomy offered to us by Beck and
==> Robbins in the C-B perspective and by Blatt from a more psychodynamic
==> perspective.  As for Mike B. in the dustbowl's point of therapeutic
==> efficacy as the bottom line for him, I cannot disagree.  I still
==> maintain that telling a client that he has need for affiliation and
==> social bonds (highly sociotropic) is an easier path than asking him to
==> get in touch with his elusive feminine side (anima).

	Actually, what I was attempting to convey was the fact that one need
not suspend one's scientific orientation to find validity in Jung. Most
psychiatrists may reasonably be thought to adhere to a scientific model, yet
many simultaneously demonstrate an interest in Jung.

	In terms of psychometrics, since you raise the issue, I'm sure that
you are conversant with such terms as introversion and extroversion. Were
you aware that Jung coined the terms, or that his research in the areas of
personality types and word association were generally acknowledged by the
scientific community as the most sophisticated work that had been done in
the area? If you have ever performed any sort of projective or relational
testing in which you considered response time as a part of the overall
criteria, you have Jung to thank for demonstrating this principle to the
scientific community and providing evidence of its validity.

	You ask if it is easier to tell a client that "he has a need for
affiliation and social bonds" than to ask him to "get in touch with his
elusive feminine side (anima)." Of course it's easier. But is it as
meaningful?

	Neither the concept of the anima nor that of affiliation and social
bonds are ones which may be easily understood. What, precisely, IS
affiliation? Can you define affiliation in terms not only understood
intellectually, but internalized to a therapeutic level by a client? How
about "social bonds?" Assuming the client DOES understand the terms in a
specific, versus a generic, sense - will that understanding help the client
to affect change? Or will it merely provide more buzzwords and labels which
the client can use to self-define?

	With a Jungian approach, the concept of "anima" will be introduced
in a more intuitive manner. The client may be encouraged to read mythology
in which the anima is a key component, then the myths discussed in relation
to the client own experiences. By relating the client's problems to those
overcome by a mythological character a greater understanding of the process
is integrated into the client's experience. The client may be encouraged to
relate the content of dreams or fantasies, and the appearance of various
archetypes (the anima among them) in those dreams and fantasies discussed
and analyzed. Regardless of the approach used, the client will be intimately
involved in the overall process in a dynamically intimate manner. The client
will be led to develop a personal understanding of the varying aspects of
themself in a manner impossible in a more structured approach. Ultimately,
the client will be led to explore the active imagination, to creatively and
interactively draw out the contents of the unconscious and explore them.
This may be done in a variety of ways ranging from sand play to painting, to
(as I did with a very technically oriented individual recently) exploring
fractals on a computer. As the client learns more about themself and becomes
more accepting of themself through these processes, they overcome the
problems which brought them to therapy in the first place.

	This approach may superficially seem "mystical" or imprecise - but
is it really? The behaviorist (arguably the most "precise" system of
psychology) may be able to affect change in a client through a system of
reinforcement - but has the internal state of the client changed or only the
external one?

	Certainly Jungian psychology isn't applicable to all cases. No
single system I'm aware of IS. But it _does_ provide a valuable tool for the
therapist, which - in those cases for which it is appropriate - can be VERY
effective in helping a client to affect the kind of insights and changes
that can result in a complete and successful integration with society and a
productive happy life.

	Isn't THAT what therapy is all about?

--
    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