Patriarch of the Psyche
ACOLYTES writing hagiographies are seldom for- tunate enough to have the assistance of the saint himself in their endeavours; Aniela Jaffe had the benefit of extensive discussions with Jung, who also wrote down many passages later incor- porated in the book. It may, therefore, be re- garded as almost an autobiography, and as representing the kind of picture Jung wished to give of himself. As such it will, of course, be of the greatest interest to all his followers; would it also appeal to others who look at his works from a more critical point of view? The answer is a curate's egg; some of the chapters, such as that dealing with his relations with Freud, are vivid, interesting and, perhaps, of some historical importance; others rather leaden, slow and devoid of interest. Autobiographies are read be- cause they are well written, and therefore in- teresting, or because the writer is an important and outstanding figure, and therefore a legiti- mate object of interest. This book, on the whole, must be judged to rest its claim for attention on the second, rather than on the first, factor; if it were not for the magic name of C. G. Jung, it is doubtful if many people would wish to read it. Jung was a very self-centred, humourless person, and this quality comes through only too clearly. It does not make for good autobiography.
Jung's fame, as far as the world at large is concerned, rests on his putative discovery of the extravert-introvert typology, and on his having broken with Freud, who had looked upon him as his intellectual son and the leader of the psychoanalytic movement. Jung says very little about the former; it would have been interesting to hear his reply to the well-substantiated criticisms that he did not, in fact, originate the terms extraversion-introversion (which were cur- rent in Europe for at least 200 years before him), and that in his account of the historical roots of his typology he left out those who had anticipated him most closely, while including some whose relation seemed obscure and tangen- tial at best. Now we shall never know his answer.
Jung is more explicit in regard to the second point, his break with Freud, and his account does, indeed, throw much light on the character of Freud and by implication of Jung also. Freud emerges as a severely neurotic person with a strong obsession about sexuality. Jung quotes him as saying:
'My dear lung. promise me never to'abandon the sexual theory. That is the most essential thing of all. You see, we must make a dogma of it, an unshakable bulwark.'
In some astonishment Jung asked him: 'A bulwark against what?'
Freud replied: 'Against the black tide of mud.'
And here he hesitated for a moment and then added: 'Of occultism.'
Jung recalls how this alarmed him:
. . . for a dogma, that is to say, an indis- putable convention of faith, is set up only when the aim is to suppress doubts once and for all. But that no longer has anything to do with scientific judgment; only with a personal power drive. This was the thing that struck at the heart of our friendship. t knew that I would never be able to accept such an attitude.
The history of the break with Freud itself, as well as the tensions which preceded it, is, of course, well known, but many interesting features are added here. Jung perceived clearly the non- scientific character of much of Freud's work, and he makes many revealing remarks on this point, but what comes out most of all is the impossibility of having no relation with Freud other than that of childlike belief and imme- diate obedience. The 'father of the tribe' theory can be seen as a simple projection of the early psychoanalytic group. Freud never managed to overcome this or any of the other symptoms of his neurosis; Jung comments: Apparently neither Freud nor his disciples could understand what it meant for the theory and practice of psychoanalysis if not even the master could deal with his own neurosis. When, then, Freud announced his intention of identi- fying theory and method and making them into some kind of dogma, I could no longer collaborate with him; there remained no choice for me but to withdraw.
Jung's ability to see the mote in Freud's eye is not matched by any ability to see the beam in his own. If Freud's approach is, indeed, non- scientific, as he himself admitted, what are we to say of Jung's own methods and results? It is fairly widely agreed that, of the two, Jung has withdrawn even farther from science into the world of myths and make-believe, and while there are many brave statements in this book of the scientific integrity which forced him to break with Freud, the reader may feel that between the lines there are emotional overtones which cast a rather different light on the whole situa- tion. Jung never even raises the question of why we should accept his evidence and reject that of Freud; why we should adopt his method of dream interpretation, rather than any other; or why we should assume that religion plays a large part in psychotherapy, rather than agree with Freud that it does not. The fact, surely, is that both rely exclusively on persuasion, authori- tative obiler dicta, and excommunication as the last resort; neither is concerned in any way with scientific proof, the testing of specific hypotheses, and the appeal to the final court—a clinical trial, carried out under properly controlled conditions.
There is one curious omission in this book which is indeed unfortunate. During and shortly after the war there was considerable criticism of Jung, who was accused of having lent his support to the Nazi movement and to certain 'blood and soil' doctrines dear to Hitler's heart. Quotations from Jung's writings seem to lend support to these accusations, which were never properly refuted. It is difficult for the outsider to know just what was the truth about this affair; Freud and his adherents had always suggested that anti-Semitism had some part to play in Jung's defection. Jung did not choose to discuss the matter in this book and it must be left to a less biased biographer to tell us the truth about this disquieting episode. Even if Jung was quite blameless, it would have been better to have said so clearly; accusations of this nature can- not just be left hanging in the air—aliquid semper haeret.
Previous page
