C.G. Jung not only provided therapy for individuals, but also for religions, cultures and societies. From his analysis of two world wars and the emerging cold war, he identified the psychic epidemic as one of civilisation’s ills.
On 26/27 April 2016, NHS Junior Doctors will be on all-out strike. This will include the withdrawal of support for emergency care and sick children. The dispute is complex and has been going on for several years. In this article, I’m not going to focus on the nature or complexities of the dispute itself, but on how each side has dealt with the conflict. The ongoing failure to resolve the dispute is not due to disagreements over particular points. It is the result of a psychic epidemic, which is something that is much deeper and more difficult to resolve.
A new, peer-reviewed paper has just been published in The Journal of Analytical Psychology (JoAP), with the title The five functions of psychological type. JoAP is the leading international journal primarily for Jungian Analysts.
The paper argues that it is better to refer to psychological type theory (better known as Myers-Briggs typology) as containing five functions, not four.
The abstract is openly available at the JoAP website. This blog page provides a summary of the content.
This article was first published in ‘TypeFace’, the quarterly magazine of the British Association for Psychological Type (BAPT), Vol. 25(4), 14-18, and is reproduced here with the permission of BAPT
It is a widely held belief that Isabel Briggs Myers’ type theory is very similar to C.G. Jung’s, and that he endorsed her development of the MBTI® instrument. However, Jung had serious concerns about the popular presentation of his theory (Myers 2012a) and the letter apparently supporting Isabel Briggs Myers was not written by him and did not reflect his opinion (Myers 2012b). Jung expressed his attitude elsewhere by saying “God preserve me from my friends” (Jung 1957, p. 304) and felt the main point of his theory was being missed:
Typology [is] only one side of my book… Most readers have not noticed [the gravamen] of the book because they are first of all led into the temptation of classifying everything typologically, which in itself is a pretty sterile undertaking. (Jung 1935)
For the past few years, I have been pursuing some PhD research into the relationship between personality and mythology. The overall aim is to find ways of promoting religious tolerance. It is based on Jung’s analytical psychology and is now in the final stretch.
I would appreciate your help by completing four online questionnaires, which will take about 30 minutes in total. When you have finished, there will be a report in the form of a PDF file, or Ebook, or you can read the results online. There is more information about the research on the page that introduces the questionnaires, at https://research.myers.co. Thank you, in advance.
If you have any questions or comments, please use my contact page (above).
In Jung’s last work on the theory of psychological types, published posthumously, he introduced the topic by writing:
“A sane and normal society is one in which people habitually disagree” (Jung 1964, p. 46).
Jung didn’t say (here) why individual disagreements are important to society, but the reasons are evident from many of his writings from 1914 onwards, when he started formulating his theories about “the process of becoming” (Jung 1914, p. 183).
Constructive disagreement is a vital part of Jung’s process of individual and cultural development and it reduces conflict in societal or international relations. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it is a natural corollary of Jung’s theories of individuation and collective compensation. I’ll start by explaining these aspects of Jung’s theories, and then conclude with some practical guidelines on what it means to disagree constructively.