What About Dr. Jung?
In 1949 the Saturday Review ran a section entitled What About Dr. Jung?, in which a mix of writers from various backgrounds offered their opinions on Carl Jung and his psychology. The first two articles of the collection neatly encapsulate the shadow that has loomed over analytical psychology since Jung's life, namely his alleged complicity with Nazism. The first piece, written by the author Philip Wylie, is a defense of Jung entitled A Misunderstood Man. Jung and his wife stayed with Wylie when Jung came to America in 1936 to speak at Yale.1 At the time there was considerable protest to Jung's presence at an esteemed American university, since accusations of his antisemitism as well as rumors of his admiration for Hitler were already widespread.2 Wylie claims however that during his stay Jung flatly expressed his belief that the Nazi high command was “insane” and that he would never again step into Germany until Hitler and the other leaders met their demise.3 Wylie believes that Jung was at first cautiously optimistic about the Third Reich in hope that it would fend off Communist Russia, which Wylie notes that Jung was always a “vehement antagonist” of.4 While Wylie does admit that Jung's assertion of the Jewish unconscious to be inferior is, in his mind, “an error,” he notes that Jung's writings on a Jewish psychology or of Germany in the thirties comprise but a small fraction of his voluminous amount of writings; furthermore Jung was well aware of Wylie's own stark rejection of Nazism, yet Jung wrote to Wylie saying that he understood his theories “more completely than anyone else writing about them in [America].”5 Therefore, argues Wylie, how could Jung or his theories support fascism? Towards the close of his article, Wylie japes and asks of his readers “that attacks on Jung's thinking by those who obviously do not comprehend it be given the short shrift by every illiterate violence.”6
The following article in the set, succinctly titled A Reply to Philip Wylie, was written by Fredric Wertham, the German-American psychiatrist most famous for his crusade against violence in popular media and comic books. Wertham refuses to chalk up “the Fascism of Carl Gustav Jung” to mere coincidences, stating, for instance, that Jung's cooperation with the cousin of Hermann Goering with the German Medical Society for Psychotherapy, or his exploration of racial psychology, and indeed his description of Hitler as being the leader of “the great political revolution in Germany” are symptoms of something profoundly wrong in his thinking, and therefore his psychology as well.7 Wertham condemns Jung's psychology for being elitist: to him it seems that certain peoples, such as the Germans, have greater access to the collective unconscious than compared to, say, the “inferior” Jews. Thus Jung's theory of a collective unconscious is not just elitist, but inherently racist. Moreover, Wertham accuses analytical psychology of supporting mass-mindedness, that Jung wants the average denizens to rely on leaders who are more capable of tapping into the collective psyche;8 it was of course Jung, on German Radio in 1933, who referred to Hitler as such a leader.9 Wertham dismisses the arguments of Jung and his followers that Jung was co-running the GMSP in a gallant effort to protect science and to use psychology to help halt the tide of Nazi madness. He claims this is baseless, noting that, while Freudian psychoanalysts were blacklisted and their books burned, Jung was officially approved and referred to as 'the great doctor', the 'explorer of the soul'.10 This is what Geoffrey Cocks would later single out Jung for: that he was the sole prominent psychotherapist approved of and most admired by the Nazis.11 In other words, the Nazis embraced Jung's work, and Jung seemed to accept the hug and, at times, embrace them back. Wertham argues that Jung's writings were of more importance to fascism in the early 20th century than even the writings of the philosopher and confirmed Nazi Heidegger, namely because of Jung's scientific accomplishments. In utter contrast to Wylie's enthusiasm for Jungian psychology, Wertham writes:
Jung's latter-day philosophy, with all its esoteric arch-tripe, fitted wonderfully with the Nazi endeavor to beffudle people's minds, make them mistrust the evidence of their own senses, and obey an elite with pure blood and impure motives.12
Such debates are nothing new. Jung's relationship with Nazi Germany is a controversy that has followed the Jungian community from the thirties to modern day. To list but a few of his detractors: Back in 1936, the famous American psychologist Gordon Allport said of Jung that it was regrettable “that a man of such keen psychological insight is willing to dull his scientific sensibilities through indirect association with the Nazi race theories.”13 More recently, in the The Jung Cult Richard Noll condemns Jung for allegedly seeing himself as some sort of Aryan-Christ, among other grievances.14 Less grandiose but nevertheless still troubling, S. Grossman puts Jung in historical context and holds him guilty for romanticizing and disseminating the prejudices of his time. Grossman also notes that Jung fits at least partially under the social scientific definition of a racist: he certainly believes that psychology and abilities vary amongst different races, and he arguably sees certain races as inferior to others.15 Grossman does come to Jung's defense when he notes that Jung became gradually more critical in his comments about Hitler by 1936. But he also observes that Jung never publicly decries the Nazis until after the war has ended, in his 1945 essay After the Catastrophe.16 Japes Wertham: “Almost by definition, a Nazi was a professed anti-Nazi in 1945.”17
It's worth pointing out too that not all of the negative opinions on this subject have come from outside the analytical psychology community: sobering opinions have even come from a few Jungians themselves. This notably occurred with Andrew Samuels in his investigation of Jung's antisemitism, as summarized in two chapters of his book The Political Psyche. Samuels wonders if there is something in Jung's attitude that aligns him with the Nazis, and if this means there is nationalism and elitism inherent in Jung's psychology. Says Samuels:
When Jung writes about the Jews and Jewish psychology, is there something in his whole attitude that brings him into the same frame as the Nazis, even if he were shown not to have been an active Nazi collaborator? Is there something to worry about?
... My brief answer, in distinction of that of many well-known Jungians, is 'yes'...18
But for all the attacks Jung has to endured over the decades, he has also enjoyed his staunch defenders. To sample his champions: In his chapter 'Carl Gustav Jung and the Jews: The Real Story' from Lingering Shadows, James Kirsch, a Jew who first studied with Jung in 1929 and remained in contact with him until Jung's death in 1961, states he never personally witnessed any antisemitism on the part of Jung, reiterates the story that Jung became president of the GMSP in a brave scheme to save Jewish colleagues, and loyally fires down Nazi suspicions through a use of Jungian theory and personal anecdote.19 Kirsch does acknowledge that sermonizing about the differences in Jewish and Aryan psychology while on German Radio and in editorials for the Zentralblatt during the height of Hitler's reign was, quite possibly, “insensitive timing” on Jung's part.20 Nevertheless, Kirsch contends that Jung absolved himself of any “Jewish complex” he may have held with the writing of Answer to Job in 1958.21
Another noteworthy protector is Aniela Jaffe, the ghostwriter of Memories, Dreams, Reflections, who wrote an article explaining Jung's actions in the thirties22- it is the basis for much of Kirsch's own chapter. Still, the most eminent guardian of Jung may be Jung himself, for it was he in both interviews and footnotes who defended notions of racial psychology, arguing one could speak of obvious differences between Jews and Germans without being anti-Semitic.23 24 In regards to accepting presidency of the GMSP and becoming editor of the Zentralblatt, both nobility and necessity seem to core parts of Jung's defense. Moreover, Jung does admit he had initial uncertainty as to the outcome of Nazi Germany. He states “when Hitler seized power it became evident to me that a mass psychosis was boiling up in Germany. But I could not help telling myself that this was after all Germany, a civilized European nation[...] Hence the ultimate outcome[...] seemed uncertain...” Curiously, Jung also cited therapeutic reasons, believing that the archetypes embedded in the collective psyche of Nazi Germany could produce results opposite of the psychopathic tendencies seen in the Nazi party. Says Jung: “It is part of the doctor's professional equipment to summon up a certain amount of optimism even in the most unlikely circumstances, with a view of saving everything that is still possible to save... even if this means exposing himself to danger.”25
Kirsch uses this argument in his own defense, claiming that Jung's diagnosis of the German condition in his 1936 essay Wotan is proof that Jung himself could not have been caught up in the fervor. Jung, says Kirsch, was not a racist, but rather “truly prophetic!”26 Astonishingly, Kirsch appeals to typology to explain why certain people, such as the Jews, are so hostile towards Jung: they misunderstand him. Or, in the case of the Jews, Kirsch says they are by large an “introverted-intuitive” people who resent those such as Jung who try to reconnect them with their roots.27 Indeed, according to Kirsch Jung's actions can be hard to interpret because he is essentially so far advanced psychologically, a modern “medicine man.”28
The tone of those who dispute attacks against Jung vary from cautiously apologetic to unabashedly zealous. Similarly, Accusations of his misdeeds in the 1930s range from total damnation to measured disapproval. The debate encapsulated by Wylie versus Wertham is one that began arguably twenty-some years before Hitler even came to power, when racial tensions simmered between Jung and Freud.29 That this aspect of Jung's legacy is something still hotly contended fifty-one years after his death is perhaps one of many things that point to the inability of Jungians to properly lay their founder to rest.30 However, Samuels suggests that investigating Jung's alleged anti-Semitism will allow Jungians to make any reparations, if necessary.31 Thus, Jung's activities in the thirties give us an opportunity to see flaws in Jung's thinking, and thus allow us to separate the man from the theory.
So, what about Carl Jung? Was he complicit in Nazism?
Chinks in the Armor
These are the briefest of facts, guided by the research of Samuels:32 In 1933 Jung became president of the German Medical Society for Psychotherapy, an international community based in Germany that was “coming under Nazi control.”33 Jung maintains his actions as president of the GMSP were altruistic: after all, he used his power to protect Jewish psychotherapists by creating a separate, individual membership for them. He also believes his cooperation with Nazi Germany was inevitable, comparing his actions to those of Galileo, who recanted during the Inquisition.34 Jung also was editor of the society's scientific journal, the Zentralblatt. Jung claims this was a figurehead position, and that he was not aware of Nazi philosophy inserted into the journal by the president of the German section, the cousin of Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reichsmarschall. There is at least some reason to dispute this claim: For instance, when Goering announced at a conference that Mein Kampf was mandatory reading as part of the membership for the society, Jung was known to have been in attendance.35 It is portions of Jung's writings in his Zentralblatt editorials, as well as his statements on Radio Berlin, that are the cause of most criticism towards him in this period. On Radio Berlin in 1933 he speaks of Hitler as a leader “who has the courage to be himself.”36 In his editorials he chides Freudian psychoanalysis for being unable to account for the “formidable phenomenon of National Socialism, on which the whole world gazes with astonishment,” for the unconscious of the German psyche is “a pit that is anything but a garbage-bin of unrealizable infantile wishes and unresolved family resentments.” In the same paper he flatly states that "the 'Aryan' unconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish." While the German-Swiss has a deep cultural history, to Jung "the Jew who is something of a nomad has never yet created a cultural form of his own and as far as we can see never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development." Additionally, "the Jews have this peculiarity with women; being physically weaker, they have to aim at the chinks in the armour of their adversary."37 All of this could easily have been mined for Nazi propaganda, and as Cocks explains Jung was indeed often cited in Nazi bibliographies of the time.38 But Jung did not seem terribly concerned about this proposition. In 1934 he says in a letter to a pupil:
As is known, one cannot do anything against stupidity, but in this instance the Aryan people can point out that, with Freud and Adler, specifically Jewish points of view are publicly preached, and as can be proved likewise, points of view that have an essentially corrosive character. If the proclamation of this Jewish gospel is agreeable to the government, then so be it.39
The New Oxford American Dictionary defines a Nazi as an actual “member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.” Two special usages of the term are also listed. 'Nazi' is also used to refer to “a member of an organization with similar ideology” to the National Socialist Party. But the title can also be used pejoratively, to describe “a person who holds and acts... in accordance with extreme racist or authoritarian views.”40
It is important to keep the denotations of 'Nazi' in mind just so we can agree on precisely what we are accusing Carl Jung of being. To ask whether or not Jung is complicit of Nazism invites the notion that he was an official member of the Nazi party, like Heidegger. There is no evidence to suggest this: For instance, even Wertham acknowledges that Jung never formally became a member.41 What we do know is that Jung entertained views on the Jews that have a lot in common with prejudices held against Jews in Europe throughout the late-19th and early 20th century, prejudices related to nationalism. Samuels regards Jung's use of the phrase “psychology of the nation” or his idea that “There is a relationship of body to earth” and that Americans are- so Jung claims- becoming “Indianized” in terms of anatomy as evidence of nationalism's influence in Jung's thinking.42 Indeed, Wertham's assertion that Jung was practicing racial psychology may be inaccurate in the sense that Jung valued the nation above race. Rather, Jungian psychology and National Socialism are similar in the sense that they both have trouble incorporating the “nomadic” Jews. Samuels explains:
First, a crucial aspect of Hitler's thinking is that the Jews represent a threat to the inevitable and healthy struggle of different nations for world domination. Second, Jung's view is that each nation has a different and identifiable national psychology that is, in some mysterious manner, an innate factor[...] My perception is that the ideas of nation and of national difference form a fulcrum between the Hitlerian phenomenon and Jung's analytical psychology. For, as a psychologist of nations, Jung too would feel threatened by the Jews, this strange so-called nation without a land. Jung, too, would feel threatened by the Jews, this strange nation without cultural forms - that is, without national cultural forms - of its own, and hence, in Jung's words of 1933, requiring a "host nation".43
Again, Grossman also links Jung's ideas on race to the nationalistic trends of his day. He remarks that Jung's depiction of the Jew as reductive and materialistic “bears striking resemblance to the Jews described and stereotyped in nineteenth-century German literature.”44 The logic here is that Jung was inspired by his own backdrop with the construction of his nationalistic thinking. As Samuels suggests, problem is that this was precisely the same reservoir that Hitler drew from in his own formulations.45
With this in mind, the question of Jung's complicity with fascism has less to do with if he was literally an ally with the Nazi regime than it does with whether or not his ideas, attitudes, and behavior- along with any prejudices he may or may not have held- were aligned, of benefit, or even in favor of what was going on in Germany in the 1930s.
Three arguments that dispute this, as used by Kirsch, are: (1) Testimony from colleagues and clients prove that Jung was not anti-Semitic. Furthermore, Jung did not actually believe Jewish psychology to be inferior than the German mind, but simply different. (2) Despite 'insensitive timing' on Jung's part with his rantings in the Zentralblatt about Jewish psychology during the height of Hitler's power, Jung's actions as head of the GMSP were meant to save Jewish lives, and in fact he became an enemy to Nazi Germany once the war began. (3) Jung actually foretold Hitler's ruin in his 1936 essay Wotan. Thus he was not swept up by Nazi fervor in the thirties, but was clinically detached and performing his duties as a scientist.46
As a Jew Kirsch's defense of Jung is compelling. Much like Hopcke's impassioned argument for Jung's value to homosexuality, the mere fact that a member of a group that seems ostracized from Jung's favor would choose to champion him makes for some intrigue.47 Not only does Kirsch assure us that he never personally witnessed anti-Semitism on the part of Jung, he tells us that it was Freud's allusion to Jung “getting over certain racial prejudices” that first caused rumors of Jung's anti-Semitism.48 Kirsch assures that Jung explained to him that Freud had very little evidence for his claim.49
But despite Kirsch's faith that Jung's thinking on Jews was nowhere near in line with Nazism, we know that Jung did in fact show disdain for the Jews on several occasions. Samuels describes the scene when Michael Fordham first met Jung in 1933, and Jung used the occasion to go off on a tangent about the 'parasitic elements in Jewish psychology.' As Samuels reiterates from Fordham's unpublished memoirs, “then Jung said that the Jews were not the same as other races and hence they should wear different clothes so as to emphasize this fact.”50 Given the period when Jung uttered this statement, it is difficult to see this quote as anything other than profound contempt. Jung's letter to Mary Mellon in 1945, in which he blamed 'Freudian Jews in America' for the rumor of his fascism, and suggests that “intellectual Jews in prewar Germany” may have had a hand in the star of the war, also seems to betray Kirsch's confidence. In the same letter Jung explains that those same American Jews attempted to sabotage his reputation by doctoring pictures of him to make him appear more Jewish. The implication is that to appear more Jewish is to hinder one's career. As Samuels observes, “we do get an idea of the spleen with which he seems to have regarded Jews.”51
Kirsch does acknowledge that Jung had some opinions about Jews that were misguided. However, he insists that, despite Jung plainly stating that “the 'Aryan' unconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish,” that Jung did not mean to insinuate that Jewish psychology was inferior. Rather, he simply meant Jews were different from Germans, and Kirsch points to a time after the war where Jung told him that Jews “were kings of the spirit.”52 Elsewhere Kirsch insinuates that the whole misunderstanding may be due to “the sensitivity to anti-Semitism of Jews.” This leads to Kirsch's assertion that the typology of the Jews prevent them from understanding Jung as well as they should.53 Its is very hard to see how one could weigh this logic along with the less endearing comments displayed in the previous paragraph. By comparison to Kirsch's use of typology, Jung's eagerness to conflate the psychology of Jews with the reasoning behind Freudian psychoanalysis seems to go far beyond matters of psychological type alone. In the Zentralblatt, Jung remarks:
The psychoanalyst's every second word is “nothing but”- just what a dealer would say of an article he wanted to buy on the cheap In this case it is man's soul, his hope, his boldest flight, his finest adventure.54
It is on this point that he makes the statement that Jews, like women, must “aim for chinks in the armor” to survive.55 Apparently, in Jung's view, the theories of Freud and Adler differed from his own not just due to scientific error or even psychological type, but because of their Jewishness.56 That Jung saw the foundations of psychoanalysis as somehow inherent in Jewish ways of thinking makes one wonder if Jung actually saw analytical psychology aligned with Aryan, or indeed even Nazi, psychology.
The second point of defense is that Jung's actions as president of the German Medical Society for Psychotherapy were really meant to covertly save the careers and lives of Jewish colleagues. While Jung did indeed create a separate branch of membership that allowed Jewish psychotherapists to stay enlisted in the society, it is hard to buy that this- and the protection of science- were his sole reasons for meddling in Nazi Germany. In fact, looking at the limited data presented here, it is possible that Jung had two ulterior motives for embedding himself within the German intellectual trends of the decade. Given his initial willingness to write pieces for the Zentralblatt and to say things on Radio Berlin that were, at the very least, mildly in tune with the Nazi propaganda of the day, suggests not that Jung was necessarily a closet Nazi, but rather that he was an opportunist who saw his chance to supplant Freud as the foremost psychologist in Europe. Jung himself wrote in a personal correspondence in 1934 that “[Psychotherapy's] development in Germany will also be crucial for us. Freud once told me, very rightly: 'The fate of psychotherapy will be decided in Germany.'”57 It is on this ground perhaps that Samuels compares Hitler's expansionism for world domination to Jung's expansionism in the realm of psychology.58 Jung, seeing that analytical psychology might survive or even be favored in Nazi Germany, may have seized this chance to secede psychoanalysis in Europe at a time when Freud was ostracized.
The other possible motive here though is that, at least up until his shift opinions in the late thirties, Jung was actually enamored with Nazi Germany. Aside from the quotes where Jung talks positively of the fuhrer's leadership or the knighthood of the Gestapo, Jung himself showed sympathy to dictatorships in his own discussions on politics.5960 This may have had nothing to do with his political preferences, however, but rather his realization that Nazi Germany was, in essence, a testing bed for his entire psychological theory. The evidence for this can be found in his essay Wotan, where Jung describes the unconscious fervor that has gripped the German masses and then forecasts the outcome. The piece, which focuses largely on the German Faith Movement that was on the rise at the time, is a wonderful microcosm of the entire situation with Jung and the Nazis: He is either lampooning the worship of the German God Wotan or encouraging it, depending on your point of view. Both Kirsch and Wylie claimed Jung was disparaging the movement.6162 But is Jung really just being facetious when he suggests that the German Faith Movement “throw aside their scruples”?63 As Grossman writes:
However efficacious this encouragement of a religious attitude in the psyche may be in a therapeutic situation, describing the irrational elements associated with National Socialism in terms of Nordic mythology during the 'thirties and accepting these elements as manifestations of a valid religious experience was more likely to encourage irrationalism than to integrate such elements into consciousness.64
Indeed, Grossman concludes that Jung saw the German people as possessed by the archetype of Wotan, and thus, in accordance with his own psychological theory, he was hopeful that were would be a realization of “Wotan's ecstatic and mantic qualities.”65 We have already seen that Jung openly admits to having been cautiously optimistic about National Socialism itself on therapeutic grounds.66 Perhaps then Jung was enamored with the Nazis, the German Faith Movement, Wotan, etc., for one underlying reason: that he hoped it would be living proof of his psychological theory. It is interesting to add that this hypothesis plays into Jung's belief that the Aryans, so deeply rooted within their nation, could tap deeper into the collective psyche than the Jewish people. What a better way to both marginalize psychoanalysis and prove the existence of a collective unconscious that only those 'rooted' enough could tap into, than the real-life laboratory that was Nazi Germany!
This leads us to Kirsch's third point, that Jung actually diagnosed Nazi Germany's doom. This is supposed to have been foretold at the end of Wotan, but as Grossman explains:
After the Second World War, Jung claimed to have ended the 1936 essay with a quote [...]that predicted the coming catastrophe. This was a distortion of the facts [...][It] was evident that Jung originally intended to conclude on a positive note. The supplementary, explanatory quotation [...]that seemed to predict dire events was only added after World War II. Unfortunately the reader has not been notified of this change, not even in the Collected Works edition.67
There is little else to add to this, other than that even Kirsch admits that Jung thought he was hasty for fleeing Germany, and Jung stubbornly denied that there was a catastrophe forthcoming. After the war, Jung would apologize to Kirsch for his misjudgment, as well as “some of the things he wrote at that time.”68
Throwing Aside Scruples
This essay is of course limited in both its scope and data. Although Kirsch's defense of Jung simply does not hold up against the bulwark of information displayed here, there is little doubt that at other times Jung expressed attitudes and displayed actions that were of complete contradistinction to the conclusions drawn here. Indeed, to try to pin down the motives, beliefs, and prejudices of a man fifty-one years dead is a dicey proposition. Still, with the defense of Jung coming up short under this analysis, we can confidently say this: Carl Jung's prejudices, actions, and beliefs in the 1930s were almost certainly complicit with Nazism. Due to common ground in nationalism, the Nazis found someone to cite in Jung. Meanwhile Jung wished to use Germany to further analytical psychology, and he also may have been hopeful to see the positive aspects of the collective come to life in National Socialism. In this context, there is indeed an alignment between Jung and Nazism.
Interesting further work would be to see what outmoded parts of Jung's thinking continue to compromise analytical psychology. For instance, by the time Jung writes The Undiscovered Self he places more emphasis on personal responsibility in society- this obviously rebuts Wertham's remark that Jung encouraged mass-mindedness.69 Certainly there is nothing to suggest that Jung wished for his psychology to be used to advocate the extermination of an entire race. Still, for those who admire Jung for preaching personal responsibility, his belief in an innate morality, and his disdain for specialists who ignore the big picture, these parting words from him are particularly hard to forgive: “If I am to be exploited for political ends, there's nothing I can do to stop it.”70
Works Cited
1Philip Wylie, “What About Dr. Jung?: A Misunderstood Man,” The Saturday Review, July 30, 1949, 5, accessed 11 April 2012, http://www.unz.org/Pub/SaturdayRev-1949jul30-00006
2No Writer Attributed, “Psychologists believe Jung under Nazi Thumb,” The Harvard Crimson, May 27, 1937, accessed 11 April 2012, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1936/5/27/psychologists-believe-jung-under-nazi-thumb/
3Wylie, “What About Dr. Jung?: A Misunderstood Man,” The Saturday Review, 6
4Ibid., 6.
5Ibid., 36.
6Ibid., 36.
7Fredric Wertham, “What About Dr Jung: A Reply to Philip Wylie,” The Saturday Review, July 30, 1949, 7, accessed 11 April 2012, http://www.unz.org/Pub/SaturdayRev-1949jul30-00006
8Ibid., 8.
9C.G. Jung Speaking, ed. W. McGuire and R. Hull london, 1978.
10Wertham, “What About Dr Jung?: A Reply to Philip Wylie,” The Saturday Review, July 30, 1949, 37, accessed 11 April 2012, http://www.unz.org/Pub/SaturdayRev-1949jul30-00006
11Geoffrey Cocks, Psychotherapy in the Third Reich (Oxford, 1985).
12Ibid., 8.
13Quoted in “Psychologists believe Jung under Nazi Thumb,” The Harvard Crimson, May 27, 1937, accessed 11 April 2012, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1936/5/27/psychologists-believe-jung-under-nazi-thumb/
14Richard Noll, The Jung Cult: Origins of a Charismatic Movement (Touchstone; 1st Edition, 1997).
15S. Grossman, “C.G. Jung and National Socialism,” Journal of European Studies, ix (1979) 9: 231-59. [In P. Bishop (ed.) (1999) Jung in Contexts: A Reader. London and New York: Routledge. 92-121.]
16Grossman, “C.G. Jung and National Socialism.”
17Wertham, 36.
18Andrew Samuels, The Political Psyche (Routledge, 1st Edition, 1993) Kindle Edition,Chapter 13, 285.
19James Kirsch. (1982) 'Carl Gustav Jung and the Jews: The Real Story'. In Lingering Shadows: Jungians, Freudians and Anti-Semitism eds Maidenbaum, A., Martin, S. Boston: Shambhala (1991).
20Ibid., 51.
21Ibid., 79.
22Aniela Jaffe, From the Life and Work of C.G. Jung, trans. By R.F.C. Hull (New York, 1971).
23C.G. Jung, “Two Essays in Analytical Psychology,” The Collected Works (Bollingen, Princeton, 1971), vol. 6.
24C.G. Jung, “The State of Psychotherapy Today,” Collected Works (Routledge, 1971), vol. 10.
25C.G. Jung Speaking, ed. W. McGuire and R. Hull london, 1978.
26Kirsch. (1982) 'Carl Gustav Jung and the Jews: The Real Story'. 67.
27Ibid. 66.
28Ibid. 70.
29(1982) 'Title'. In Lingering Shadows: Jungians, Freudians, and Anti-Semitism eds Maidenbaum, A., Martin, S. Boston: Shambhala (1991).
30Andrew Samuels, “Will the Post-Jungians Survive?” Post-Jungians Today, 1995, ed. Ann Casement.
31Andrew Samuels, The Politial Psyche, (Routledge, 1st Edition, 1933) Kindle Edition, Chapter 13, 285.
32Andrew Samuels, The Political Psyche (Routledge, 1st Edition, 1993) Kindle Edition,Chapter 13.
33Andrew Samuels, “Jung and Antisemitism,” Originally published in The Jewish Quarterly, Spring, 1994, accessed 12 April 2012, http://www.history.ac.uk/resources/e-seminars/samuels-paper#17t
34Quoted in (1982) 'Title'. In Lingering Shadows: Jungians, Freudians, and Anti-Semitism eds Maidenbaum, A., Martin, S. Boston: Shambhala (1991), 371.
35Samuels, The Political Psyche, Chapter 13.
36 Quoted in C.G. Jung Speaking, ed. W. McGuire and R. Hull London, 1978.
37C.G. Jung, “The State of Psychotherapy Today,” C.W., vol.10., pp.340-353.
38 Cocks, Psychotherapy in the Third Reich (Oxford, 1985).
39 Quoted in (1982) 'Title'. In Lingering Shadows: Jungians, Freudians, and Anti-Semitism eds Maidenbaum, A., Martin, S. Boston: Shambhala (1991), 371.
40New American Oxford Dictionary, Kindle Edition., s.v. “Nazi.”
41Wertham, “What About Dr. Jung?: A Reply to Philip Wylie,” The Saturday Review, 36.
42 C.G. Jung, “The Role of the Unconscious", C.W., vol. 10.
43Samuels, “Jung and Antisemitism.” 1994.
44Grossman, 236.
45Samuels, The Political Psyche, Chapter 13, 313.
46Kirsch. (1982).
47Hopcke, R. (1989) 'Why Jung, Jungians and Homosexuality?: A Brief Introduction'. (Chapter 1), 'C.G.Jung and Homosexuality' (Chapter 2), 'Jung's Attitudes and Theories on Homosexuality' (Chapter 3). Jung, Jungians and Homosexuality. Boston: Shambhala.
48Quoted in Sigmund Freud, The History of Psychoanalysis, SE15 (Vintage, 2001).
49Kirsch. (1982), 62.
50Quoted from Samuels, The Political Psyche, Chapter 13, 299.
51Quoted in Ibid., 300.
52Kirsch. (1982), 68.
53Ibid, 66.
54C.G. Jung, C.W., vo1.10, pp.353.
55Ibid.
56Grossman, 236.
57Quoted in (1982) 'Title'. In Lingering Shadows: Jungians, Freudians, and Anti-Semitism eds Maidenbaum, A., Martin, S. Boston: Shambhala (1991), 373.
58Samuels, The Political Psyche, Chapter 13.
59Samuels, The Political Psyche, Chapter 12.
60Quoted in Grossman, 235.
61Wylie, 1949.
62Kirsch. (1982).
63C.G. Jung, C.W., vol.10, pp. 397.
64Grossman, 252.
65Ibid., 252.
66C.G. Jung Speaking, ed. W. McGuire and R. Hull london, 1978.
67Grossman, 252.
68Kirsch, (1982), 62.
69C.G. Jung, “The Undiscovered Self,” C.W., vol.10.
70Quoted in (1982) 'Title'. In Lingering Shadows: Jungians, Freudians, and Anti-Semitism eds Maidenbaum, A., Martin, S. Boston: Shambhala (1991), 371.
No comments:
Post a Comment