![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by allisonm on May 26, 2000, at 21:52:49
To extend the conversation from Freud, if it's not too early, I would be interested in thoughts on Carl Jung.
Posted by Aunt B on May 26, 2000, at 23:40:42
In reply to So then what do you folks think of Jung?, posted by allisonm on May 26, 2000, at 21:52:49
> To extend the conversation from Freud, if it's not too early, I would be interested in thoughts on Carl Jung.
Both of these guys were a phenomenon of a particular time. The franchise that allowed the church to define reality had eroded and the definition of self was among one of the last areas to be taken over by secular European society. The printing press, electronic communication and transportation were being refined to the point that ideas could spread to far reaching audiences, essentially allowing new ideas to fill a vacum left by the church's waning franchise.
Jung's ideas of introversion and extroversion are still widely used, such as in the Myers Briggs personality profiling tests. My opinion is that insies and outsies are not set for life, but rather are determined in part by social factors, and can be fluid if a person's social environment changes.
More important, perhaps, to the development of psychological thinking in western society was Jung's notion of a collective unconscious, and his recognition of archetypes. Both of these ideas had been around, at least in practice if not in written form, for eons. My impression of the practice of sorcery is that it deals with collective ideation (as well as individual ideation).
Jung created a new form of pshycological/scientific fundamentalism, in which the collective unconscious was presumed to be populated by a specific cast of archetypes. It was fundamentalism that rendered his ideas imperfect, I believe.
A very rigid, structured society might indeed share a fundamental set of archetypes. More recent study into human development seems to indicate that we form archetypical ideas around our primary care-givers and our closest early social sets. But beyond these very basic structures – images of "mom" or "dad" likely carved in the limbic system as we first experience other humans – archetypes are very fluid, kind of like slang.
For example, you ask, "what do you folks think..." In most American circles, "folks" is a general social reference. But in parts of Chicago and many other midWestern cities, "Folks" is a specific reference to membership in the Gangster Disciples street gang. In Vice Lord territory, "folks" would be a very unfriendly, even accusatory reference.
Well, I digress. That is just an example of how diverse definitions can evolve for a shared idea. A genuine understanding of the archetypes that inhabit the unconscious of any particular individual or social group requires more time than most institutions can afford. Such an understanding would require matrixes of long-lasting, person-to-person relationships that go against the grain of a mass-market economy, or of a mass socialist society. Such understanding would imply commitments to person and place that are rarely found in our society. I would say our society is well adapted for fabricating, manipulating and exploiting handy archetypes, but not very adept at allowing a durable ecology of archetypes to evolve among diverse communities.
The archetypes that populate the human psyche are not as rigid as the ones Jung proposed. He, like many scientists and academians have for generations hence, defined a fundamentalism that in turn defined who was "supportive" and who was "disruptive." Those who do not buy the fundamental tennants of a particular academy are often chastised, banned, ignored, ridiculed or otherwise attacked (sometimes labeled as being, get this, "unsupportive").
I often wonder why Freud's other collegue, Alfred Alder, did not gain the same lasting recognition as did Jung.
In the profitable self-help publishing market of the late 20th century, Jung's ideas fit well into dream interpretation manuals that could be mass marketed. People could sound smart, spouting their knowledge of esoteric "Jungian psychology."
Alder's "individual psychology" likely contributed more to the development of various therapuetic methods, but I think the feelings and behaviours he associated with social interest were probably too empowering – ultimately too subversive – to be mass marketed. I am no conspiracy theorist, but I do notice that large institutions are often reluctant to promote ideas that will not contribute to individuals' continued dependance on institutions. If ideas Alder suggested, like the courage to be imperfect, or reforming behavior, became too widely practiced, what would that mean to the salaries of deans, pscyh-doctors, department heads, and the profit margin of publishing companies? In the end, many of Alder's ideas were either too obvious to be attributed solely to him, or were lost as the century ground the great international socialist experiment into hamburger to feed an ecomonic caste system.
Posted by shar on May 26, 2000, at 23:43:30
In reply to So then what do you folks think of Jung?, posted by allisonm on May 26, 2000, at 21:52:49
I didn't read the Freud conversation so this may not follow in style.
I think with Jung (he is the "collective unconscious" "shadow self" dream-oriented guy?) that some of his ideas will work for some people some of the time.
I don't think "pure Jung" or pure anybody or anything (ie, one point of view) lends itself to growth. Things, the mind/body/spirit, are too complex.
If we are talking therapy vs. theory, I believe therapy should abound with a myriad of different resources, probably have some certain core perspectives, but lots of opportunities to explore different paths...a varied therapeutic milieu.
Shar
Posted by Tina1 on May 27, 2000, at 9:42:23
In reply to A little Jung couldn't hurt...., posted by shar on May 26, 2000, at 23:43:30
Do psychiatrist use any of these methods today anyway?
> I didn't read the Freud conversation so this may not follow in style.
>
> I think with Jung (he is the "collective unconscious" "shadow self" dream-oriented guy?) that some of his ideas will work for some people some of the time.
>
> I don't think "pure Jung" or pure anybody or anything (ie, one point of view) lends itself to growth. Things, the mind/body/spirit, are too complex.
>
> If we are talking therapy vs. theory, I believe therapy should abound with a myriad of different resources, probably have some certain core perspectives, but lots of opportunities to explore different paths...a varied therapeutic milieu.
>
> Shar
Posted by Noa on May 27, 2000, at 10:52:08
In reply to Jung or Old?, posted by Tina1 on May 27, 2000, at 9:42:23
Interesting. I think Jung's ideas are fascinating to apply to cultural phenomena and literature, etc. Aunt B., I agree that the idea of a finite set of archetypes is unlikely, especially in today's increasingly pluralistic communities. But the concept is interesting to think about, at least within the bounds of fairly cohesive cultural groups. Or, to note how, as communities blend more and more, the lack of shared archetypes might affect relationships.
There are still a fair number of therapists who think Jungian when working with patients, I think. I think the therapeutic sandtray work has a lot of Jungian theory as its basis. I think Jungian ideas also appeal to a lot of new age sorts of healing approaches.
Posted by bob on May 28, 2000, at 10:37:44
In reply to Re: Jung or Old?, posted by Noa on May 27, 2000, at 10:52:08
Sorry, I digress a bit here (but then, what else is new?)
One of my favorite Callahan cartoons was of this old, bearded guy sitting on a chair in a big tub ... there were a bunch of people with wings around him or standing in line, with brushes and "paint cans", a few of them slopping on some stuff with the brushes ... and then there was this cop turning away two guys with horns and barbed tails.
The caption for the strip was "Only the good dye Jung"
still looking for synchonicity,
bob[yes, I know, I could probably find it at Amazon.com]
Posted by shar on May 28, 2000, at 20:08:46
In reply to Jung or Old?, posted by Tina1 on May 27, 2000, at 9:42:23
> Do psychiatrist use any of these methods today anyway?
>
>
Yes, indeedy, Tina1. I had a therapist a few years ago who was solidly Jungian, and we did a LOT of dream analysis, etc. Jung's ideas are definitely alive and well.There is a wonderful tape called "Warming the Stone Child" that addresses the issue of abandonment in childhood from a Jungian perspective. I believe it is extremely good, I listen to it often, and it incorporates telling stories (myths) which is very interesting to me. The author is Pinkerton-Estes.
Shar
Posted by allisonm on May 29, 2000, at 13:32:02
In reply to Tina1, he just keeps going, and going, and going.., posted by shar on May 28, 2000, at 20:08:46
> > Do psychiatrist use any of these methods today anyway?
> >To echo Shar, absolutely. I'm seeing a therapist now who uses Jung's theories, which is why I started this thread.
I have been doing a fair amount of reading on Jung. Some things ring true, some I find interesting, other things seem archaic, but I understand the time in which they were written. At this point, what my therapist is introducing is making some sense and I'm willing and interested in continuing as well as trying to educate myself more on the larger picture.
There is a C.G. Jung page: http://www.cgjung.com/
And there is a Jung Foundation that publishes books, many of which are available through Shambhala Book Publishers (www.shambhala.com). I've found one of Shambhala's books, A Guide Tour of the Collected Works of C.G. Jung by Robert Hopcke, quite helpful. Hopcke breaks down Jung's theories and terms into easily-digested bites, written in common language, and lists further readings should the reader want to know more. It's a good primer.Currently I am reading a book titled Archetypal Dimensions of the Psyche, by Marie-Louise von Franz, who worked closely with Jung from 1934 until his death in 1961. The book discusses myths, fairy tales, dreams and visions and their relationship to the collective psyche.
Clarissa Pinkola Estes is a Jungian analyst and storyteller. The tape Shar refers to is one in a series of audiotapes called the Jungian Storyteller Series. Warming the Stone Child dwells on the unmothered. There are others: The Wild Woman Archetype, on the instinctual nature of women, In the House of the Riddle Mother, on common archetypal motifs in women's dreams, etc. On and off over the last 8 months or so I have tried to read Pinkola-Estes' book "Women Who Run With the Wolves: Myths and Stories of the Wild Woman Archetype." My psychiatrist introduced it to me. I've not heard her tapes but I don't care much for Pinkola-Estes' writing (very repetitive, kind of over-the-top enthusiastic, at least for cynical me). Von Franz does a better job of explaining myths and fairy tales as they relate to the collective in more of a straightforward way.
Posted by Cindy W on June 1, 2000, at 10:02:54
In reply to Are Jung's methods used? Absolutely., posted by allisonm on May 29, 2000, at 13:32:02
> > > Do psychiatrist use any of these methods today anyway?
> > >
>
> To echo Shar, absolutely. I'm seeing a therapist now who uses Jung's theories, which is why I started this thread.
>
> I have been doing a fair amount of reading on Jung. Some things ring true, some I find interesting, other things seem archaic, but I understand the time in which they were written. At this point, what my therapist is introducing is making some sense and I'm willing and interested in continuing as well as trying to educate myself more on the larger picture.
>
> There is a C.G. Jung page: http://www.cgjung.com/
> And there is a Jung Foundation that publishes books, many of which are available through Shambhala Book Publishers (www.shambhala.com). I've found one of Shambhala's books, A Guide Tour of the Collected Works of C.G. Jung by Robert Hopcke, quite helpful. Hopcke breaks down Jung's theories and terms into easily-digested bites, written in common language, and lists further readings should the reader want to know more. It's a good primer.
>
> Currently I am reading a book titled Archetypal Dimensions of the Psyche, by Marie-Louise von Franz, who worked closely with Jung from 1934 until his death in 1961. The book discusses myths, fairy tales, dreams and visions and their relationship to the collective psyche.
>
> Clarissa Pinkola Estes is a Jungian analyst and storyteller. The tape Shar refers to is one in a series of audiotapes called the Jungian Storyteller Series. Warming the Stone Child dwells on the unmothered. There are others: The Wild Woman Archetype, on the instinctual nature of women, In the House of the Riddle Mother, on common archetypal motifs in women's dreams, etc. On and off over the last 8 months or so I have tried to read Pinkola-Estes' book "Women Who Run With the Wolves: Myths and Stories of the Wild Woman Archetype." My psychiatrist introduced it to me. I've not heard her tapes but I don't care much for Pinkola-Estes' writing (very repetitive, kind of over-the-top enthusiastic, at least for cynical me). Von Franz does a better job of explaining myths and fairy tales as they relate to the collective in more of a straightforward way.Enjoyed posts on this thread. At the recent conference I went to (Evolution of Psychotherapy), there was discussion of Jungian concepts. What really impressed me though was Ericksonian psychotherapy, about which I knew nothing before the conference.--Cindy W
Posted by allisonm on June 1, 2000, at 22:55:49
In reply to Re: Are Jung's methods used? Absolutely., posted by Cindy W on June 1, 2000, at 10:02:54
What really impressed me though was Ericksonian psychotherapy, about which I knew nothing before the conference.--Cindy W
Cindy,
Can you describe it?
Thanks.
Allison
Posted by Cindy W on June 2, 2000, at 1:08:27
In reply to Ericksonian Cindy W, posted by allisonm on June 1, 2000, at 22:55:49
> What really impressed me though was Ericksonian psychotherapy, about which I knew nothing before the conference.--Cindy W
>
> Cindy,
> Can you describe it?
> Thanks.
> AllisonAllison, Ericksonian psychotherapy emphasizes trance/hypnosis work, heavy emphasis on multiple of meaning within spoken language, and also emphasizes careful avoidance of conflict between therapist and client. Also, they pay attention to nonverbal cues, and offer "directives" (paradoxical instructions, metaphors, subliminal suggestions) and places relatively little value on insight (you don't have to try to change based on understanding how your problems now are related to your past). Finally, at times, it can work very rapidly (unlike some forms of psychotherapy such as analysis). Ericksonian psychotherapy is heavily based on a systems rather than individual focus (that is, the attention is on the systems within which the client is embedded (family, friends, relationships, coworkers, therapist-client), not intrapsychic (within the client) issues. (Explanation provided courtesy of my significant other, Scott, who is much more knowledgeable about Ericksonian methods and did his dissertation on this topic).--Cindy W
Posted by bob on June 2, 2000, at 15:43:59
In reply to Re: Ericksonian Cindy W, posted by Cindy W on June 2, 2000, at 1:08:27
[gotta love that Google "I feel lucky" button}
A nice on-line reference can be found at http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/erikson.html
Erik Erikson is the person we have to thank for the terms "identity crisis" and, if I'm not mistaken, "inferiority complex". I'm more familiar with his work from a developmental psychology perspective ... one of the things that set him apart from his contemporaries was in his firm believe in life-span development, as opposed to folks like Piaget who thought the brain stopped developing by 20 or so, or personality psychologists who believe the Big Five are done developing by 35 or so.
Erikson focused on ego development, believing it to occur on a genetically-predetermined timescale. Environmental forces interacted with this genetic unfolding to aid or interfere with the process of development. [Which probably explains the lack of emphasis on insight -- heredity as the internal force, environmental stress as the external.] His view on development had people going through eight stages, each of which involved a conflict between a positive and a negative aspect. The proper or improper resolution of any conflict would influence the development and resolution of later conflicts.
Some of the more remarkable points about the man include his holding faculty positions at Harvard and Berkeley even though his highest academic credential was his high school diploma, and earlier, his involvement with Anna Freud's "school" and being an analysand of Anna Freud himself. Something also worthy of note is that because of his emphasis on environmental issues vs. heredity, he spent a lot of time over his career trying to demonstrate the cross-cultural value and application of his approach to human development. Few theoreticians have really had the success that Erikson had in addressing cross-cultural issues that were truly rooted in culture and not in a shared biology.
FYI, I'll toss in a list of the stages here, but see the reference above if you want a more detailed explanation ... that's what hypertext is for, after all.
Stage 1: Basic Trust vs. Basic Mistrust (0-1 years)
Stage 2: Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt (1-3 yrs)
Stage 3: Initiative vs. Guilt (3-6 yrs)
Stage 4: Industry vs. Inferiority (7-12 yrs)
Stage 5: Identity vs. Identity Diffusion (12-18 yrs.)
Stage 6: Intimacy vs. Isolation (18-25 yrs.)
Stage 7: Generativity vs. Self-Absorption (25-50 yrs.)
Stage 8: Integrity vs. Disgust and Despair (50+ yrs.)cheers,
bob(what? me? self-absorbed? I never noticed...)
Posted by Noa on June 2, 2000, at 16:31:06
In reply to A bit more on Erikson..., posted by bob on June 2, 2000, at 15:43:59
I think Gail Sheehy takes off with this view of lifespan development and explores in in depth in her book, Passages.
Erikson's stages are appealing, and are probably a big part of most developmental psych classes. Problem with neat stage theories is people often take them too literally. I like to think that as we move through life, each of these major "struggles for mastery" (what Erikson might call conflicts) tags along with us, and we revisit them over and over again, but in new ways, and with new perspectives.
Posted by Cindy W on June 2, 2000, at 22:20:13
In reply to Re: A bit more on Erikson..., posted by Noa on June 2, 2000, at 16:31:06
> I think Gail Sheehy takes off with this view of lifespan development and explores in in depth in her book, Passages.
>
> Erikson's stages are appealing, and are probably a big part of most developmental psych classes. Problem with neat stage theories is people often take them too literally. I like to think that as we move through life, each of these major "struggles for mastery" (what Erikson might call conflicts) tags along with us, and we revisit them over and over again, but in new ways, and with new perspectives.Hey, guys, that's a different Erikson! The one I'm referring to is Milton H. Erickson, not Erik Erikson. Erikson talked about developmental stages, as Bob and Noa pointed out. Milton Erickson pioneered a new type of psychotherapy.--Cindy W
Posted by boBB on June 2, 2000, at 22:21:29
In reply to A bit more on Erikson..., posted by bob on June 2, 2000, at 15:43:59
bob, you are right, that is a nice on-line reference.
But the concept of an inferiority complex is attributed there (and in other sources, but Boeree's site available for reference) to Alfred Adler (1870 - 1937), rather than Erikson (1902 - 1994).
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/adler.html
Posted by Noa on June 3, 2000, at 13:04:54
In reply to Re: A bit more on Erikson..., posted by Cindy W on June 2, 2000, at 22:20:13
Aha!
Thanks for the correction, Cindy. Erickson is the hypnosis guy--not what we usually think of as hypnosis with a major consciousness-altering trance, though. More like using imagery in very powerful ways, right?
Posted by Blue Cheer on June 3, 2000, at 22:02:17
In reply to Re: Ericksonian Cindy W, posted by Cindy W on June 2, 2000, at 1:08:27
> > What really impressed me though was Ericksonian psychotherapy, about which I knew nothing before the conference.--Cindy W
> >
> > Cindy,
> > Can you describe it?
> > Thanks.
> > Allison
>
> Allison, Ericksonian psychotherapy emphasizes trance/hypnosis work, heavy emphasis on multiple of meaning within spoken language, and also emphasizes careful avoidance of conflict between therapist and client. Also, they pay attention to nonverbal cues, and offer "directives" (paradoxical instructions, metaphors, subliminal suggestions) and places relatively little value on insight (you don't have to try to change based on understanding how your problems now are related to your past). Finally, at times, it can work very rapidly (unlike some forms of psychotherapy such as analysis). Ericksonian psychotherapy is heavily based on a systems rather than individual focus (that is, the attention is on the systems within which the client is embedded (family, friends, relationships, coworkers, therapist-client), not intrapsychic (within the client) issues. (Explanation provided courtesy of my significant other, Scott, who is much more knowledgeable about Ericksonian methods and did his dissertation on this topic).--Cindy W
Cindy,
I saw a psychiatrist and gifted therapist intermittently from 1964 to 1990 -- as an adolescent, in pre-marital therapy, and later in family therapy. For a while, his social worker wife was co-therapist, and I noticed they both had diplomas from the Erikisonian School of something or other. I always knew there was something different and very special about the way he related to me, and it wasn't until a few years ago that I learned that he was using some of the Eriksonian techniques (metaphors, imagery, and paradoxical suggestions, etc.). When I read about Erikson, it was an awakening. Since this psychiatrist's retirement, I've seen several therapists, but it's not the same; I just don't get out of it what I did before, and I've seen a few of the best CT/CBT therapists in Phila. I can recall things he said over 30 years ago verbatim, as if it were last week. That's the kind of impact he had on me. I now believe in Martin Seligman's concept of therapy; that is, it doesn't matter what kind it is, but that the nature of the relationship is paramount.Blue Cheer ~~~
Posted by bob on June 3, 2000, at 22:46:34
In reply to Re: Ericksonian Cindy W » Cindy W, posted by Blue Cheer on June 3, 2000, at 22:02:17
Erickson ... Erikson -- I thought it was a typo. Thanks for the update, Cindy W -- unbelieveable the difference one letter can make.
Thanks, boBB, for the correction on inferiority complex as well. I really don't know my clinical psych as I should.
;^)
bob
Posted by Cindy W on June 7, 2000, at 9:06:02
In reply to Re: Ericksonian Cindy W » Cindy W, posted by Blue Cheer on June 3, 2000, at 22:02:17
Blue Cheer, I started reading about Ericksonian therapy, and I have been really impressed by the subtlety of the techniques. Sounds like a wonderful experience to have had the therapy you had!--Cindy W
> > > What really impressed me though was Ericksonian psychotherapy, about which I knew nothing before the conference.--Cindy W
> > >
> > > Cindy,
> > > Can you describe it?
> > > Thanks.
> > > Allison
> >
> > Allison, Ericksonian psychotherapy emphasizes trance/hypnosis work, heavy emphasis on multiple of meaning within spoken language, and also emphasizes careful avoidance of conflict between therapist and client. Also, they pay attention to nonverbal cues, and offer "directives" (paradoxical instructions, metaphors, subliminal suggestions) and places relatively little value on insight (you don't have to try to change based on understanding how your problems now are related to your past). Finally, at times, it can work very rapidly (unlike some forms of psychotherapy such as analysis). Ericksonian psychotherapy is heavily based on a systems rather than individual focus (that is, the attention is on the systems within which the client is embedded (family, friends, relationships, coworkers, therapist-client), not intrapsychic (within the client) issues. (Explanation provided courtesy of my significant other, Scott, who is much more knowledgeable about Ericksonian methods and did his dissertation on this topic).--Cindy W
>
>
> Cindy,
> I saw a psychiatrist and gifted therapist intermittently from 1964 to 1990 -- as an adolescent, in pre-marital therapy, and later in family therapy. For a while, his social worker wife was co-therapist, and I noticed they both had diplomas from the Erikisonian School of something or other. I always knew there was something different and very special about the way he related to me, and it wasn't until a few years ago that I learned that he was using some of the Eriksonian techniques (metaphors, imagery, and paradoxical suggestions, etc.). When I read about Erikson, it was an awakening. Since this psychiatrist's retirement, I've seen several therapists, but it's not the same; I just don't get out of it what I did before, and I've seen a few of the best CT/CBT therapists in Phila. I can recall things he said over 30 years ago verbatim, as if it were last week. That's the kind of impact he had on me. I now believe in Martin Seligman's concept of therapy; that is, it doesn't matter what kind it is, but that the nature of the relationship is paramount.
>
> Blue Cheer ~~~
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.