Jung

19 Aug 1995 15:31

As far as I can see, a crank, maybe even a kook. Why so influential?

Glover, Freud or Jung [Well, sort of a recommendation. Glover is a deeply-dyed Freudian, and is at some pains to flaunt his colors; but just divide through for that. The chapter on Jung's politics, in particular, repays attention.]
Don McGowan, What Is Wrong with Jung? [Pedestrian writing; does try to be fair and sort out the useful bits from the trash; does not explore sources or influence in any detail. Occasional inaccuracies about thermodynamics, which are inconsequential. Overall, damning if dull.]
Noll, The Jung Cult [Yet more on Jung's sources (crankish and/or nonsensical, and uniformly reactionary), doctrines (ditto), followers (the most charitable description is ``easily led'') and methods (bankrupt), including just what you have to pay to become completely ``individuated'' (cf. ``clear'' in Scientology, which at least has a more vivid mythology). This is simply appalling: and the complete text where he announces his deification is absolutely unbelievable. (Yes, deification.)]

Robert Ellwood, The Politics of Myth: A Study of C. G. Jung, Mircea Eliade, and Joseph Campbell