Leveson – why it is bound to fail

Leveson inquiry: man reading newspaper Press freedom vs regulation

There is perhaps little doubt that the issues Leveson attempted to address in his report, published in 2012,¹ are extremely difficult. There are some fundamental clashes of values, e.g. between freedom of the press and individual human rights, which are compounded by other factors, such as the rising tides of the internet and alternative forms of publishing.

The issues are of fundamental importance to all of us, even those who are not involved in public life or journalism. As C.G. Jung once pointed out, “politicians and journalists [can] unwittingly let loose psychic epidemics on the world” (Jung 1929, p. 37). Although such power/responsibility is now more widely shared, through globalisation and social media, the manner in which Leveson’s findings are being pursued may ultimately have a big impact on our social and cultural well-being and cohesion. However, from the perspective of analytical psychology, things are not heading in a good direction.

Continue reading →

World Peace – how to do your bit.

Soldier
In 1948, C.G. Jung wrote to UNESCO describing how analytical psychology could help promote world peace (Jung 1948). He made some practical suggestions that they did not take up.

The nature of international conflict has changed significantly since then. There has been a shift in the balance from war towards terrorism, a shift that was predicted before the fall of the Berlin Wall by a Jungian Analyst (Bernstein 1989). Nevertheless, Jung’s proposals remain relevant today as they provide practical ways in which every citizen can play their part in developing world peace.

Continue reading →

The Societal Value of Conspiracy Theorists

On the Sunday Politics recently, Andrew Neil called the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones an idiot, and made a circular motion pointing his finger at his own head to suggest Jones was crazy. You can see the 5 minute exchange using the BBC’s video clip (right, or at the BBC website).

To many viewers, it may have seemed a natural response for Neil to dismiss Jones as a crazy person. However, from the perspective of Jung’s analytical psychology, that would be to respond to an error with another error – because Neil allowed himself to get drawn into Jones’ black and white thinking. Also, there is something of potential value in Jones’ intensity of belief and breadth of support – because it suggests there is something else occurring at a much deeper, cultural level.

Continue reading →

Personality Type changes the meaning of words

Misunderstandings between people

Your personality type can change the meaning of the words you use. This can potentially lead to confusion, misunderstanding, or conflict.

Sorry
For example, people who prefer Thinking tend to use the word “sorry” to mean they have made a mistake. Those who prefer Feeling tend to use it to show sympathy or empathy. This can lead to misunderstanding because:

When a Feeler says “I’m sorry”, the Thinker can misconstrue this as being an admission of an error.
When a Thinker fails to say “I’m sorry”, the Feeler can misconstrue this as lacking care or concern.

In some cases, the argument that ensues can end up in the law courts. For example, if a doctor apologises for the bad outcome of an operation, a patient might mistake this for an admission of liability. (Using an apology as evidence of liability has been outlawed by some US states.)

Continue reading →

Good enough leadership: a good enough example.

Justin Welby hit the headlines by choosing, for his first Easter sermon as Archbishop of Canterbury, his failure as a leader.¹ To some, this might seem a slightly odd topic, or perhaps a side-issue to the real message of Easter. But, from a Jungian perspective, it can be seen as a brilliant choice, both from a leadership point of view and one of personal, spiritual development.

Jung was “absorbed by the question of leadership” (Samuels 1993, p. 287). Much of Western leadership culture is concerned with aiming to be the perfect leader – doing things better, to a higher standard, or becoming more excellent. In analytical psychology, however, this is one-sided and unrealistic, and a better leader is one who aspires to wholeness.

Continue reading →