The Plural Turn in Jungian and Post Jungian Studies The

Work of Andrew Samuels 1st Edition

Visit the link below to download the full version of this book:

https://medipdf.com/product/the-plural-turn-in-jungian-and-post-jungian-studies-
the-work-of-andrew-samuels-1st-edition/

Click Download Now

The Plural Turn in Jungian
and Post-​Jungian Studies

The Work of Andrew Samuels

Edited by
Stefano Carpani
First published 2021
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2021 selection and editorial matter, Stefano Carpani; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Stefano Carpani to be identified as the author of the editorial material,
and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted by them in accordance
with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book
ISBN: 978-0-367-52506-4 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-52507-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-05821-2 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman
by Newgen Publishing UK
I am convinced not only that what I say is wrong
but that what will be said against it will be wrong as well.
Robert Musil
Contents

Preface by Kevin Lu  xi

Introduction – Andrew Samuels: Plurality, politics

and ‘the individual’  1
STEFANO CARPANI

PART I   13
From the PhD theses
1 An enquiry into psychological aspects of recovery from
dependence on psychoactive substances  15
MARY ADDENBROOKE

2 The tabloid Trickster: a post-Jungian evaluation of early

twenty-first century popular British newspaper journalism
characterised by that of The Sun  26
JAMES ALAN ANSLOW

3 Laws of inheritance: an archetypal study of twins  38

ELIZABETH BRODERSEN

4 From emancipation to liberation: a neo-​Jungian critique

of Theodor Adorno  57
STEFANO CARPANI

5 A spatial rapprochement between Jung’s technique of

active imagination and Desoille’s Rêve éveillé dirigé  71
LANER CASSAR

6 A critique of containing space in therapeutic work  86

MARTYNA CHRZESCIJANSKA
x Contents

7 Alchemy and individuation  100

CLARE CRELLIN

8 Pan stalks America: contemporary American anxieties

and cultural complex theory  113
SUKEY FONTELIEU

9 Personal myth and analytical psychology  129

PHIL MCCASH

10 On the spirit and the self: Chagall, Jung and religion  143
J.A. SWAN

11 Marriage as a psychological relationship in China  159

HUAN WANG

PA RT I I   179
Andrew in 1000 words
12 Mary Addenbrooke  181
13 James Alan Anslow  183
14 Elizabeth Brodersen  186
15 Stefano Carpani  188
16 Laner Cassar  191
17 Martyna Chrzescijanska  195
18 Clare Crellin  198
19 Sukey Fontelieu  200
20 Phil McCash  202
21 J.A. Swan  205
22 Huan Wang  208

PA RT I I I   211
Psychoanalysis in the 21st Century
23 Stefano Carpani and Andrew Samuels in conversation  213

List of contributors  231

Index  243
Preface

Stefano Carpani has accomplished a Herculean task, bringing together the

works of many PhDs supervised by Professor Andrew Samuels across the
years. Stefano has brought to the job his experience as both an academic and
clinician to provide a measured view of the exciting and creative topics that,
together, cement the Department of Psychosocial and Psychoanalytic Studies
at the University of Essex as a centre of excellence and innovation. I have been
involved with several of these projects in some capacity: as a co-​supervisor,
supervisory panel member and internal examiner. Reading through these
contributions brought back fond memories and reminded me of how far our
discipline has come. The rapid development of the field since the publication
of Andrew’s Jung and the Post-​Jungians (1985) has led Stefano to posit the
existence of an Essex school of critical Jungian studies. This is a provocative
idea that will no doubt be a topic of debate in the years to come. But we can
all agree that the work of one man will stand as a central pillar (amongst
many) in these future discussions. Indeed, it is a rare occurrence that one indi-
vidual receives two Festschrifts in recognition of his/​her contribution to a field
of endeavour. And yet here we are.
It would not be hyperbole to state that Andrew Samuels has, single-​
handedly, been the architect of an entire discipline. My aim in this preface
is not to enumerate a list of Andrew’s achievements and accolades. This has
been done elsewhere and, in all honesty, the word limit to which I must work
would not suffice. Rather, I have two goals in mind. First, I wish to high-
light the ways in which Andrew has intuited the directions of a field of study
and how he continues to do so. It would be wise for all those who consider
themselves Jungians and Post-​Jungians –​broadly defined –​to take notice.
Second, I want to comment on Andrew as a PhD supervisor. There may be
many ‘formulas’ to successfully guiding PhD candidates, but as a witness to
his approach (Andrew was my mentor when I first started supervising PhDs
and together, we have guided three PhDs to completion), I can attest that
the alchemy behind the transformation he facilitates lies not in an adherence
to any one style, but his ability to read a relational matrix and to mobilise a
xii Preface

persona (and not in the pejorative sense) that is required in any given moment
of a PhD ‘life cycle’. In many ways, his ability to adapt therapy thinking to
diverse contexts has been his ‘calling card’, and I have been fortunate enough
to observe the ways in which he has enriched student lives in the potentially
stultifying context of neoliberal higher education.
In his seminal paper, ‘The Future of Jungian Studies: A Personal Agenda’
(1996), Andrew reiterates a definition of what it means to be ‘Post-​Jungian’,
first outlined in his Jung and the Post-​Jungians (1985). If Jung’s ideas are to be
taken seriously in the academy –​and certainly, this is a site in which his psych-
ology might flourish –​then we need to be his ‘critical friends’. In essence, a bal-
ancing of tensions is required, where we openly acknowledge a connectedness
to Jung’s ideas while establishing the need for critical distance. This increases
the possibility of generating new knowledge and building bridges to other
academic disciplines with which Jung engaged, albeit to varying degrees and
with different levels of success. Here, I am reminded of Karl Popper’s (1957/​
1961) dictum, ‘For if we are uncritical, we shall always find what we want: we
shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and
not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories’ (p. 134). Andrew’s
intentions in mapping out parameters of inquiry have injected ‘traditional’
Jungian Studies, which some may define as an approach to analytical psych-
ology underpinned by a myopic dedication to ‘the master’, with some ser-
ious academic rigour and scholarship. The MA Jungian and Post-​Jungian
Studies at Essex, which was initiated by both Andrew and Professor Renos
Papadopoulos in 1996 with the generous support of the Society of Analytical
Psychology, is a testament to this.
The contents of this book are further evidence that the critical eye Andrew
has compelled us to cast upon the study of Jung’s psychology was the appro-
priate direction upon which to embark; indeed, it was the only path possible
if Jung’s ideas were to survive in academia. The areas of research that Andrew
(1996) highlighted requiring our attention over twenty-​three years ago have
been addressed and continue to be topics of concern: the social and cultural
location of analytical psychology; the relationship between analytical psych-
ology and psychoanalysis; the epistemological and methodological challenges
presented by Jung’s understanding of the psyche; and the utility of applying
Jung’s ideas to the human sciences, the arts and religious studies. All chapters
in this book speak to at least one, if not several, of these themes simultan-
eously; these areas have become, metaphorically, the landscape, terrain and
setting from which every PhD journey in Jungian and Post-​Jungian Studies
begins. And, as our colleague Dr Gottfried Heuer (2010) rightly notes in his
own Introduction to Andrew’s first Festschrift, ‘hardly any texts that deserve
to be taken seriously in the field can be said not to be directly or indirectly
influenced by his [Andrew’s] work’ (p. 1).
Not one to rest on his laurels, Andrew’s (2017) article on the future of
Jungian analysis updates his mission statement on the direction of analytical
 Preface xiii

psychology in its many forms, be it as an academic discipline, theoretical lens,

clinical practice or lynchpin for social justice initiatives. While we should cele-
brate and continue to develop our strengths –​which include the eclecticism
of Jung’s psychology and its growing importance to political discourses, its
applicability to neuroscience, the potential contribution it makes to the rela-
tional turn in psychoanalysis, and its unique position to speak to shifting
gender identity norms and relationship styles –​he is also keen to point out
the potential pitfalls or, in Jungian terms, the shadow. His ability to resist
being blinded by the discipline’s blind spot not only acts as a clarion call to all
scholars to be aware of the unconscious in their research, but also constitutes
areas of research in and of themselves. These include Jung’s prejudices (in
particular, issues surrounding race and racism), the fear of elitism and esoteri-
cism that are still evoked when Jung’s psychology is utilised, and the residual
effects of Noll’s (1994) characterisation of Jung as a charismatic leader. My
point in briefly summarising Andrew’s recent article is this: his ability to see
the field from a plurality of perspectives, to celebrate its achievements while
noting its limitations (warts and all), to embody the voice of reason and to be
the voice of caution, make him a pillar of our community and a leader in an
enterprise we call Jungian psychology.
It is no surprise, then, that Andrew’s recognition as a leader in our field
reflects his success as a PhD supervisor, where he helps others to create
new knowledge that pushes the boundaries of the discipline to which he
has committed his life. The sheer breadth of research covered in this book
indicates Andrew’s wide-​ranging expertise and diverse interests. What I am
more concerned with here, however, is his approach to supervision and his
role as a metaphorical ‘midwife’. The suggestion may seem odd at first, but
I hope the following explanation justifies its use as a quintessential archetypal
image that encapsulates the many ways Andrew has impacted the field, in vis-
ible ways and others of which some may not be aware.
Terry Gatfield (2005), reflecting on PhD supervisory dynamics, suggests
that a supervisor’s supervision style is determined by the emphasis he/​she
places on the structure and support he/​she provides to the candidate. Structure
entails how the supervisor organises and manages the research project, while
support indicates the way in which a supervisor sustains the candidate’s morale
throughout the research project. When structure and support are brought
together in dynamic tension, four different supervisory styles emerge: laissez-​
faire, pastoral, directional and contractual. A supervisor of the laissez-​faire
style is non-​directive and not committed to high levels of personal inter-
action. The pastoral style entails a low emphasis on structure, but stresses
high levels of support. A directional style supervisor plays a prominent role
in structuring the work, but avoids non-​task-​related issues and interactions.
The contractual style combines high levels of structure and support. Here,
the supervisor manages the project while simultaneously cultivating a strong
interpersonal bond with the student.
xiv Preface

Any educational model that seeks to understand the dynamics of PhD

supervision will have benefits and drawbacks. Gatfield’s research provides a
useful point of orientation regarding what supervision entails and, indeed,
alerts us to what is missing in terms of appreciating the psychological nature
of the relationship that develops. When reflecting on Andrew’s own style, I am
struck by his uncanny ability to know which style is required at a particular
point in the supervision cycle. At times, students will need a directional style;
at others, they won’t need Andrew to be the font of knowledge but rather,
they’ll need the compassionate role model who cultivates the emotional for-
titude required to complete a PhD. Sometimes students don’t want to engage
at all and they want their supervisor to leave them alone, and that’s accept-
able, especially if they’re in the all-​consuming process of writing up. Does this
mean that Andrew has got it right every time and that he hasn’t made some
mistakes along the way? Far from it. He will be the first to admit that he can be
grumpy and, on occasion, can be a bit short with candidates. Yet he is quick
to apologise and to repair relationships where ruptures have occurred. But on
the whole, I’ve seen Andrew embody all these styles at one point or another to
the greatest effect. His intuitive grasp of the PhD supervision process is that it
must be fluid and lived in relationship with the student. This, in turn, reflects
the plurality and relational ethos of his approach (Samuels, 1989; Loewenthal
and Samuels, 2014). His supervisory style or, in Jungian terms, the persona he
dons, needs to be whatever the student requires him to be so that this crucial
step in another’s individuation process may be facilitated.
When seen in this way, analysis and academia don’t seem to be worlds apart.
Indeed, if I were to characterise Andrew’s style, I would call it ‘mercurial’. He
is both analyst and academic, one of the few who are able to straddle these
identities faithfully and with integrity. He is a taskmaster, sounding board,
critic and friend. His ability to balance all of these personas, and more, defines
him as one of the most successful, humane and celebrated scholars in Jungian
and Post-​Jungian Studies and beyond. What sets him apart and indeed, what
is missing from Gatfield’s otherwise insightful analysis, is the alchemy and
transformational potential of the supervisory relationship itself, which can
boil down to a supervisor’s ability to see the telos of the relationship from a
larger perspective. Perhaps this is a reason why Andrew may come across as
being impatient at times. He sees what students and their projects can become,
and he’s eager to get them there.
The Hermes-​like function Andrew serves as a PhD supervisor is not only
to help students achieve a coveted title, but to also help them manage this
moment of liminality and period of unknown possibilities. It is both truly
terrifying and liberating, and it takes a unique person who is willing and
able to shape-​shift –​to don these multiple masks and roles –​in accordance
to someone else’s needs. The significance of this is only heightened when
we gauge the reality of Andrew’s situation –​he is playing this role for mul-
tiple students at any given time, alongside his teaching and administrative
 Preface xv

duties, research, clinical practice, speaking engagements, his commitment to

activism and above all else, his dedication to his family. In the spirit of Jung
(1941/​1959), a student learns because of who the teacher is, not by what he/​
she says.
To return to the image of the midwife, Andrew is not only nurturing a
student’s research and facilitating its birth into the world, he’s also nurturing
the development of the student. Every PhD will have that moment when they
hit the pit of despair, when their respective superegos tell them that they are
frauds, and that their research will never be ‘good enough’. And it is at this
precise moment that Andrew springs into action like no other can. Having
co-​supervised PhDs with Andrew and others, I can say in all honesty that
when we come to this crucial point in the PhD life cycle, no one is better than
Andrew.
I want to end this preface with a personal vignette of my initial image of
Andrew, which was quickly laid to rest when I forged a real relationship with
him. As an undergraduate at the University of Toronto, I remember picking
up a copy of Jung and the Post-​Jungians (1985) from Robart’s Library. After
reading it, I was astounded as to how far Jungian thinking extended beyond
the reaches of what Andrew terms a ‘classical’ approach. In particular, his
distinctions between various ‘schools of thought’, however controversial,
provided a useful framework from which I began to grasp the reality of
Jungian Studies –​there wasn’t a unified way of research and understanding
Jung, only a multiplicity of perspectives reflecting the very plurality for which
he was arguing. When I began my PhD at Essex in 2006, I had an idealised
image of an authoritative leader in the field who demanded respect, which in
turn coloured the way I interacted with him. But he was very quick to ‘kill’
this image. As a student, he told me to call him by his first name; as a newly
appointed member of staff, he took me aside and said, ‘Stop it with this def-
erence. You belong here, end of story.’ Usually, a complex arises because of
an inevitable gap between an ideal and the real. In this instance, however, the
reality was much better than the fantasy.
Andrew sees the psychological aspect in all things, and proactively
mobilises his vast knowledge and experience to help and enable others. He
hasn’t achieved what he has achieved by being a ‘shrinking violet’, that much
is true. But equally, he is a sensitive and kind individual who has gone out
of his way to launch the careers of several other prominent members of our
field, be it within the clinical or academic domain, or both. I have seen first-​
hand his unwavering commitment to students and his concern for the future
and advancement of our discipline. I have seen him push back against policies
he thought would disadvantage PhD students, and I’ve seen him win these
battles. Andrew is not so worried about how posterity will judge him, but only
that his work –​and the research he has inspired and supervises –​contributes
to a critical appreciation of analytical psychology for which he has tirelessly
fought his entire working life.
newgenprepdf

xvi Preface

At the beginning of 2019, Andrew retired from the Department of

Psychosocial and Psychoanalytic Studies. I think it is fair to conclude that
things aren’t quite the same. But to my colleague and friend, I’d like to say
that I hold on to the lessons you’ve imparted and that I keep your ethos to
education in mind. If a university is a business at all (a thought that fills me
with dread and absolutely breaks my heart), then we’re in the ‘business’ of
enriching lives through research. Thank you for reminding me of this.
Dr Kevin Lu
Senior Lecturer
Department of Psychosocial and Psychoanalytic
Studies, University of Essex

References
Gatfield, T. (2005). “An Investigation into PhD Supervisory Management Styles: devel-
opment of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications” in Journal
of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(3), pp. 311–​25.
Heuer, G. (2010). “Introduction: a plural bouquet for a birthday celebration in print”
in Sacral Revolutions: reflecting on the work of Andrew Samuels –​Cutting edges in
psychoanalysis and Jungian analysis. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 1–​4.
Jung, C. G. (1941/​1959). “The Psychology of the Child Archetype” in The Collected
Works, vol. 9i: The archetypes and the collective unconscious. Sir Herbert Read,
Michael Fordham and Gerhard Adler (eds); R. F. C. Hull (trans). London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul, pp. 151–​81.
Loewenthal, D. and Samuels, A. (2014). Relational Psychotherapy, Psychoanalysis and
Counselling: appraisals and reappraisals. London and New York: Routledge.
Noll, R. (1994). The Jung Cult: origins of a charismatic movement. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Popper, K. (1957/​1961). The Poverty of Historicism. New York and Evanston, IL:
Harper & Row Publishers.
Samuels, A. (2017). “The Future of Jungian Analysis: strengths, weaknesses, oppor-
tunities, threats (‘SWOT’)” in Journal of Analytical Psychology, 62(5), pp. 636–​49.
—​—​—​. (1996). “The Future of Jungian Studies: a personal agenda” in Martin Stanton
and David Reason (eds), Teaching Transference: on the foundations of psychoanalytic
studies. London: Rebus Press, pp. 15–​26.
—​—​—​. (1989). The Plural Psyche: personality, morality & the father. London and
New York: Routledge.
—​—​—​. (1985). Jung and the Post-​Jungians. London and New York: Routledge.
Introduction – Andrew Samuels
Plurality, politics and ‘the individual’
Stefano Carpani

This book is quite unique. It is a Festschrift for Andrew Samuels, written by

his own PhD students and, furthermore, it is Andrew’s second Festschrift.
Therefore, this book is a tribute to Andrew, the teacher, the man, the mentor
and the theorist. It is a tribute to Andrew as –​as the Germans would say, in
one word –​ Doktorvater.
Andrew, as Doktorvater, wrote about the father in almost all of his
books: the plural father, the father of whatever sex, the wounded father (as
something to be healed), the father’s desire to be loved (and not only as an a-​
emotional or un-​emotional security provider); therefore, the father as the new
man, which he described as a ‘loving and attentive father’ and a ‘sensitive and
committed partner of whatever sex’.
This is a book that, for the very first time, reunites some of Andrew’s PhD
supervisees –​scholars trained at the Centre for Psychoanalytical Studies1 at
Essex University who have specialised in Jung studies but whose passion for
psychoanalysis goes beyond Jung’s theory. Therefore, those scholars –​whom
I call Neo-​Jungians2 –​employ Jung (in a new fashion) along with other schools
and traditions of psychoanalysis (and beyond psychoanalysis), which mutu-
ally contaminate and enrich each other.
I sense this book might also help to acknowledge what could be called
the Essex School, which is a particular approach to the study of Jung and
Psychoanalysis and finds its centre of gravity –​with distinctions –​in Andrew
himself and Renos Papadopoulos. An example of this, apart from this book,
is Elizabeth Brodersen and Pilar Amezaga’s book titled Jungian Perspectives
on Indeterminate States: Betwixt and Between Borders (Routledge, 2020),
which includes six papers (out of 15) from Essex graduates.
Now, before diving into the themes and the authors who contributed to
this work, I would like to briefly investigate Andrew’s own work on plurality,
politics and ‘The Individual’.
In his 1985 book Jung and the Post-​Jungians, Samuels claimed that there
are three main post-​Jungian traditions –​the ‘classical’, ‘developmental’ and
‘archetypal’. It may now be time to add a fourth: the plural. This approach,
encompassing eclecticism and integration, is rooted in Samuels’ work and
2 Introduction

aims to restore and enhance Jung’s work and analytical psychology at the
core of depth psychology, by studying the psyche as plural and, therefore, as
political.
As a writer who blends Jungian with relational psychoanalytic and human-
istic approaches, Samuels is not a ‘classical’, ‘developmental’ or ‘archetypal’
Jungian analyst, and his work can be divided into two different but linked
elements, ‘the plural’ and ‘the political’, underpinned by an interest in psy-
chosocial studies.
Samuels’ ‘plural’ period was solidified in the late 1980s with the publica-
tion of The Plural Psyche (1989), the first in a series, of which the second
and third books The Political Psyche (1993) and Politics on the Couch (2001),
marked his ‘political’ period. These were followed in 2015 by A New Therapy
for Politics.
According to Samuels, the plural psyche is a concept necessary to both
analytical and depth psychology to ‘hold unity and diversity in balance’,
because pluralism is an ‘instrument to make sure that diversity need not be
a basis for schismatic conflict’ (Samuels, 1989: 1). This is, in my opinion,
what makes of Samuels a relational psychoanalyst ante litteram. He also
examines the post-​1989 world (communism vs. capitalism) from a mer-
ging perspective, in suggesting that the ‘fostering of competitive bargaining
between conflicting interests produces creative rather than destructive
results’ (Samuels, 1989: 1).
Therefore, as the Cold War world (1989) was ending, Samuels suggested
‘reconciling our many internal voices and images of ourselves with our wish
and need to feel integrated and speak with one voice’ (Samuels, 1989: 2). This
applies to both depth psychology and the socio-​political sphere, and Samuels
emphasised that pluralism can serve as a political metaphor.
Samuels’ political interest heightened, as Peay (2015) has underlined, in
the early 1990s when, during and after the Gulf War and Iraqi invasion, he
noticed patients bringing war-​inspired dreams into the analytic hour. He also
realised that not only do psychotherapists ‘have little time for politics’ but
that, in turn, many politicians ‘scorn introspection and psychological reflec-
tion as a waste of time’ (Samuels, 2001: 3).
Examining the plural and political psyche thus enabled him to work both
within and outside of the consulting room, as a successful consultant for
politicians, organisations, activist groups, etc. In contrast to Hillman, Samuels
actively demonstrated ‘how useful and effective perspectives derived from psy-
chotherapy might be in the formation of policy, in new ways of thinking about
the political process and in the resolution of conflict’ (Samuels, 2001: XI) and
claimed that ‘our inner worlds and our private lives reel from the impact of
policy decisions and the existing political culture’. In considering why policy
committees do not include psychotherapists, Samuels notes that ‘you would
expect to find therapists having views to offer on social issues that involve
personal relations’ (Samuels, 2001: 2). This is Samuels’ most innovative