There is a popular misunderstanding that C.G. Jung approved of Isabel Briggs Myers’ work. However, he repeatedly objected to the popular interpretation of his book Psychological Types and research based on the MBTI® instrument. There was a rift between I.B. Myers and C.G. Jung which has been hidden for more than half a century from those who use Myers-Briggs typology (Myers, S. 2019).
The misunderstanding is largely due to a complimentary letter from Jung to Myers in 1950. However, Jung did not write it and it did not represent his opinion. It was written by his secretary who couched it in diplomatic language to conceal Jung’s disapproval.
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.
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.
My jaw dropped when I started reading The Independent’s review of the Mansion House speech yesterday morning. On the front page of their website they showed a picture of George Osborne, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, in full flow delivering his speech. Alongside was a headline that said “£1,400 a year from UK’s 3.7m poorest families: Osborne reveals who cuts will hit”.
Wow, I thought. How could Osborne follow up Cameron’s “one nation” speech by telling a group of highly-paid financiers that he was going to cut benefits for the poor?
Then something strange happened. When I returned to the home page some time later, the headline had changed. It now read: “£1,400 a year from UK’s 3.7m poorest families: Is this where Osborne’s cuts will hit?” In the early afternoon, I returned to The Independent home page a third time. This time the headline had been removed altogether, but older stories were still there.
The 2015 election results are in, and they are full of shocks:
- Three party leaders resigned before all the results had been announced.
- The Tories’ victory was contrary to the consistent message of all the pre-election polls.
- Labour suffered their most crushing defeat for 30 years.
- In Scotland there was a rout by the SNP.
- UKIP gained 12.6% of the votes but only 0.15% of the seats.
C.G. Jung’s analytical psychology can offer a useful perspective on these results, one that might help voters and parties alike in their preparations for the 2020 election.