[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So, I have 2 questions for Tipsters: (1) would you
> recommend Carl Jung for graduate school if he were your
> student? And (2) Do you think I am unfit to teach psychology
> because I still read Jung in the privacy of my own home?
To answer your second question first; I hope not--I'm <hiding my
head and dodging the tomatoes> a certified Jungian! :-(
Before I'm thrown off the list for heresy, I'll point out that I
the majority of my graduate work was in the area of deviance (cultural
sexual deviance in the case of Sociology & criminal sexual deviance in
the case of CRJ Psychology), not clinical, so I can "get away" with
having studied Jung w/o adversely affecting my students! :-)
Seriously, the key to understanding Jung is understanding his
era and culture. Given the Victorian times his views were formed in, and
the state of Psychology at the time, he was actually pretty "scientific"
and advanced for his time--certainly much more so than Freud, his
contemporary and mentor. Anyone who has read his earlier works (i.e.,
Psychiatric Studies, etc.) recognizes the extent to which he went as a
graduate student/young professional to approach "Mental processes" from
a scientific perspective versus a superstitious one. Would I recommend
him for graduate school? Assuming he was a willing to base his research
on the _current_ state of knowledge as he was when he originally began
his graduate studies . . . I would unhesitatingly recommend him to any
school he elected to attend.
As far as his actual theories go; obviously the majority are
pretty far removed from modern psychology--blame that on the state of
knowledge when he originated them. At the same time, broken down to
their components, many of his views aren't that "far out" in reality.
Take, for example, the concept of the archetype. Jung would argue that
we have a racial archetype of, for example, the snake that makes it
easier for us to fear it than, for example, a bunny rabbit (Little
Albert excepted, of course). Today we see that model as pretty
unrealistic--but is it really that much of a stretch to conceive of a
possible survival characteristic in having a fear of snakes as our
species evolved, or of that tendency having some genetic link? While
humans don't respond in "instinctive" manners as do other animals, we
_do_ have certain "hard-wired" tendencies that predispose us to certain
behaviors (i.e., language acquisition, etc)--if we view Jung's
archetypes (and the mythological models they are based on) in that
context, he would be a natural to go into evolutionary psychology today!
Of course, before you view Jung as being _too_ ahead of his
time, just remember the chamber with the 8' tall, flesh colored, erect,
one-eyed serpent that he said made him think of his father--and that he
found it easier to relate to a mythological basis than to having seen
his father nude (see: Dreams & Reflections). Any wonder Freud wanted him
to "take over the reins" of the Psychoanalytic Society he founded? ;-)
Rick
--
Rick Adams
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College
Jackson, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love
you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible "
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
