Journal of Analytical Psychology, 2019, 64, 5, 658–681

Theoretical foundations of analytical

psychology: recent developments and
controversies

Christian Roesler, Freiburg, Germany

Abstract: This article gives an introductory overview of the papers in this volume
originally given at the Joint Conference of the IAAP and the University of Basel, Basel,
October 18-20, 2018. The aim of the conference was to bring core concepts of
analytical psychology together with theorizing and research from academic sciences, at
the very place where Jung started his academic career, the University of Basel. The
conference focussed on three fields: the relationship of consciousness and the
unconscious and the theory of complexes; the theory of archetypes; and the status of
analytical psychotherapy in contemporary psychotherapy research. The aim of the
conference was to further the development of theory in analytical psychology in
relation to results and insights in contiguous areas of knowledge. In the first
area, contributors pointed to the solid evidence especially from the neurosciences
for the psychodynamic conceptualizations of the unconscious, and also for the
concept of complexes. In contrast to this, the concept of archetypes is controversial,
with a majority of contributors questioning Jung’s biological conceptualizations of
archetypes, and speaking instead for reformulations from the perspective of cultural
theory, dynamic systems theory and other approaches. In the field of psychotherapy
research, contributors pointed to the profound need for conducting more empirical
studies on the outcome of Jungian psychotherapy, but also for a thorough
reconsideration of standard research designs in the field.

Keywords: academia, Analytical Psychology, contemporary sciences, empirical

research, psychotherapy research

This volume presents a collection of papers originally given at the Joint

Conference of the IAAP and the University of Basel, Basel, October 18-20
2018. The IAAP has recently started to conduct conferences together with
universities, to bring together analytical psychology with contemporary
academic scholarship. Carl Gustav Jung began his academic career at the
University of Basel and later, in the 1940s, received a professorship in
psychology from the University of Basel, which he apparently was very happy

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Analytical Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The
Society of Analytical Psychology
0021-8774/2019/6405/1
Published by Wiley Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
DOI: 10.1111/1468-5922.12540
Christian Roesler 659

to accept. Thus, the University of Basel seemed to be a good place to focus on

the relationship of analytical psychology’s major concepts and academic debates
in psychology, the neurosciences and other disciplines. The conference focussed
on three fields: namely the relationship of consciousness and the unconscious,
and closely connected with this, the notion of complexes; the theory of
archetypes; and the status of analytical psychotherapy in contemporary
psychotherapeutical research. For each of these fields, renowned speakers
presented overviews of the current debate together with current research in the
field. The aim of the conference was to further the development of theory in
analytical psychology in relation to the results and insights in the respective
contiguous areas of knowledge. Since some of the fields in focus are still
controversial, e.g. the theory of archetypes, speakers not only presented
different viewpoints, but also took part in extended panel discussions, so as
to create a space for discussion and controversy, with the aim of creating
progress in theoretical debates.

The relationship of consciousness and the unconscious

Whereas the existence of an unconscious in the psychoanalytic sense was
denied by academic psychology for decades, today the situation has changed
considerably. Even in contemporary cognitive psychology the existence of
unconscious mental processes is no longer denied. The neurosciences have, in
large part, been responsible for this development. Mark Solms, psychoanalyst
and neuroscientist from Cape Town, South Africa, who coined the term
‘neuropsychoanalysis’ (Kaplan-Solms & Solms, 2000; Solms & Turnbull,
2005), presented an overview of the findings relating brain studies with
psychoanalytic concepts1. Considerable evidence was found for the existence
of task oriented unconscious processes, even in the sense of Freud’s mechanism
of suppression, i.e. the brain is capable of interpreting meaning (e.g. in
texts) and starting respective actions without any of these processes ever
becoming conscious (Kehayan et al. 2013). At the same time, Solms presented
a surprising new view on how consciousness is now understood in the
neurosciences: whereas especially in Jungian psychology the unconscious is
seen as primary and basic, the foundation upon which consciousness is built
(as is often said in analytical psychology: ‘ego consciousness is an island in an
ocean of unconscious’), the new theory of the brain sees consciousness as the
base. Consciousness arises out of the brainstem, which we share with all
vertebrates. The content of these basic conscious processes is the detection of
emotions, which inform us about the transgression of limit values (e.g. body
temperature) and then lead to actions that serve to maintain homeostasis. In

1
Mark Solms recently published a theoretical paper summarizing the scientific status of
psychoanalysis, referring to recent findings in the neurosciences and other disciplines. The paper
contains the major positions he presented in Basel and is available online (open access): https://
www.therapyroute.com/article/the-scientific-standing-of-psychoanalysis-by-m-solms
660 Introductory overview

contrast, unconscious content is formed through repeated experiences and is laid

down in implicit memory structures. It was quite interesting to see that Mark
Solms, as a Freudian psychoanalyst, had no problem to state that Freud
was absolutely wrong when postulating something like ‘the id’. Solm’s
neuropsychoanalysis is a good example to demonstrate how contemporary
research can support certain psychoanalytic concepts, but also thoroughly
question others, and create a need to revise psychoanalytic theories.
In the first years of his career Jung (1992), in his Association Experiment
studies, was able to provide empirical evidence for the existence of a dynamic
unconscious, by formulating the concept of complexes (see Krieger, in this
volume). This seminal contribution made by Jung is often underestimated or
even not mentioned. Concepts similar to the complex in the sense of Jung were
‘reinvented’, for example, as emotional schema in Schema Therapy (Young
et al., 2005). On the other hand, there is clear evidence from brain imaging
studies, for neural correlates of complexes (Petchkovsky et al., 2011). Isabelle
Meier (in this volume) presents an overview of contemporary concepts from
other disciplines that can be linked to the concept of complexes. She redefines
the complex as a structure which is formed when basic needs are not met. For
a theory of basic needs she refers to the theory of neuroaffective systems
formulated by the neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp (1998).
It can be stated that Jung’s concept of the complex has become one of the
most successful of his ideas and has received strong empirical support (for an
overview see Roesler & van Uffelen, 2018). Other concepts from his time as an
empirical researcher have found their way into academic psychology, such as
the personality dimension of introversion-extraversion, which has become one
of the so-called Big Five in personality psychology and is part of most well
established personality inventories. On the other hand, Jung’s relationship to
his own research with the Association Experiment, which formed the basis
for his complex theory, demonstrates a split that goes through Jung’s work
and still today characterizes the relationship of analytical psychology to
academic research and theorizing. Even though these studies brought him an
international reputation as an empirical researcher, he gave up this scholarly
endeavour, together with his teaching position at the university, more or less
from one day to the other, and never took it up again. (I will return to this
later, see below). C.A. Meier (1994), who collected Jung’s unfinished data
and put them together in a publication of his own, demonstrated that Jung
was on his way to creating an empirically founded theory of a psychodynamic
unconscious, which would have had an enormous influence on the
development of academic psychology at that time.

The controversy around the concept of archetypes

Even though the concept of the archetype has to be considered as central to
analytical psychology, from the beginning there has been controversy around
Christian Roesler 661

its theoretical and empirical foundations. There have been many attempts to
formulate new theoretical foundations for arguing for universal archetypes, but
no fully satisfying theoretical conceptualization is at hand (see Hogenson, in
this volume).
As a result of the discussions at the conference, it became very clear that there is
no consensus on how archetypes are defined in contemporary analytical
psychology. I agree with Mills who states:

Jung failed to make this clear. And Post-Jungian schools including contemporary
Jungian movements have still not answered this most elemental question. As a result,
there is no clarity or consensus among the profession. The term archetype is thrown
about and employed, I suggest, without proper understanding or analysis of its
essential features. … The most basic theoretical tenet of the founding father of the
movement is repeatedly drawn into question within postclassical, reformed, and
contemporary perspectives to the degree that there is no unified consensus on what
defines or constitutes an archetype. This opens up the field to criticism - to be labelled
an esoteric scholarly specialty, insular self-interest group, Gnostic guild, even a mystic
cult. Jungianism needs to rehabilitate its image, arguably to modernize its appeal to
other academic and clinical disciplines.

(Mills 2018, p. 1)

Hogenson (in this volume) gives an overview of the development of the

controversy, starting with the debate between himself and Anthony Stevens
(2003) around the question of innateness of archetypes.

Innateness
Jung was obviously convinced that archetypes are genetically imprinted and
transmitted from one generation to the next via biological pathways (for an
overview on this argumentation in Jung see Krieger, in this volume). Jon Mills
(2018) gives an overview of all the places in Jung’s collected works where he
refers to this biological argumentation. Proponents of this view in analytical
psychology are Anthony Stevens (2003) and John Haule (2011). Meanwhile
there is a huge amount of evidence, from biology, genetics, developmental
psychology etc., which speaks clearly against this assumption. First of all, there
is consensus in behavioural biology that humans do not have instincts (Jung
often parallels archetypes with instincts/patterns of behaviour in animals for
example, in Jung 1949, para. 1228; see also Krieger in this volume). There are
some basic reflexes in new-born infants, but these are quickly lost and replaced
by mental patterns stemming from experience. Understanding the human
genome led to the insight that symbolic information cannot be genetically
encoded. Also, even if there are genetically preformed mental patterns, they are
subject to strong influence from the environment via epigenetic processes. The
key concept of contemporary theories of human development therefore is
gene-environment-interaction (for an overview see Roesler, 2012; Merchant, in
662 Introductory overview

this volume). A detailed analysis of these contemporary insights and their

implications for archetype theory had already been presented by Jean Knox
(2003). Later she again stressed this point:

The fact that animals demonstrate patterns of automatic motor action, … is mistakenly
used by Jungians as the basis for arguing archetypes are also an inherited pattern of
mental representation, imagery and thought, apparently part of our genetic make-up.
… Automatic behaviour patterns can be under significant genetic influence … mental
imagery and thought are the result of much more complex interactions between
brain, mind and environment, in which genetic ‘hard-wiring’ plays virtually no part.

(Knox 2009, p. 311)

There is a strong consensus of experts dealing with archetype theory in the

last two decades (many of them published in the Journal of Analytical
Psychology), that Jung’s assumption of a biological/genetic transmission of
archetypes can no longer be supported (see also Merchant in this
volume); this consensus was also reflected in the discussions at the Basel
conference.
In contrast to this clarification in the expert literature, the state of the debate
seems to have had only little or even no impact on the teaching of archetype
theory in Jungian training institutes. I am part of the faculty in a number of
Jungian training institutes, and it seems to me that training candidates are
often taught about archetypes as if nothing had happened since Jung’s days.
The same applies to many Jungian publications, which apply a state of
archetype theory almost identical with that of Jung’s late years. Jean Knox
pointed to this problem in 2003, stating that often extremely out-dated
concepts are used in Jungian psychology, especially when it comes to
archetypes. A current example: in a recent German textbook on the work
with symbols in Jungian psychology (Dorst, 2015), Jung’s assumption that
images are primary in the psyche, is repeated, without any reference to
current brain research, which clearly shows that until the age of 4-6 months
there are no image representations possible because of the immaturity of the
neural system; the first psychic representations are embodiments, not images.
At the conference this was stressed by Mark Solms, who pointed to the fact
that in the limbic system or other innate brain structures, no images are
stored; images, as in dreams for example, are secondary products involving
preconscious or even conscious processes. This means that there are no
primary images; in other words, there are no images that are totally
unconscious and no images that have never been conscious before and that
were not conceived based on experience.
Such an ignorance of contemporary insights and debates, of course, creates a
massive problem when analytical psychology attempts to find a place in
academic psychology today. Merchant (2009) even suggested that the use of
the term archetype itself should be questioned:
 Christian Roesler 663

If contemporary neuroscience does ultimately reveal that the archetype-as-such is not

innate as originally conceived, then the question arises – is the word ‘archetype’ itself
too suffused with innatism and preformationism meanings to prevent confusion?. . .
(For) if we think, act and clinically practise as if archetypes are a priori, innate psychic
structures which determine psychological life when this is not the case, then we could
become irrelevant to the broader psychotherapeutic community.

(Merchant 2009, p. 355)

Archetypes as products of emergence

Hogenson (2004 and in this volume), among others, has been an important
figure in the developments that have led to the reformulation of archetype
theory, which is now seen as the emergent product of the interaction of genes,
development and narrative. This reformulation takes into account the above
mentioned insights in neighbouring disciplines. There is no doubt that, if there
are archetypes, they are the products of emergent processes. However, since
this applies to basically all mental elements in humans, from my point of
view, emergence theory does not explain very much (for a detailed discussion
see Roesler, 2012). There is actually a lack of investigation in analytical
psychology, which attempts to reconstruct the developmental pathways, which
lead from basic, maybe even genetically imprinted structures, to more complex
patterns, which could be called archetypes. Exceptions to this rule are the
publications by Erik Goodwyn (2010, 2012 and in this volume), who argues
with basic biological starting points for archetypes, but specifies the emergent
pathways in the sense of gene-environment-interaction in detail. As with Meier
(in this volume), he refers to Panksepp’s (1998) neuroaffective theory and
argues with the principle of functional convergence. Other exceptions are the
publications by John Merchant (2012), who investigates the archetype of the
wounded healer in shamanism and, in this volume, he investigates one of
Jung’s classic cases, and draws the conclusion that the phenomena can be well
explained without referring to any kind of innate archetype. Finally, of course,
Jean Knox (2003), who has already been mentioned.
Though there is no agreement on how archetypes can actually be defined, it
can be stated that there is agreement on what archetypes are definitely not:
they are not genetically imprinted and transmitted solely via biological pathways.

Human universals
Jungians arguing for the concept of the archetype, or applying it to cultural
phenomena or case material, often refer to knowledge from anthropology,
but very often, at least in my estimation, without reference to actual empirical
or state-of-the-art findings in anthropology. An exception to this is, of
course, John Merchant’s (2012) above-mentioned publication on the
archetype of the wounded healer. If one does go into the relevant literature in
664 Introductory overview

anthropology, the surprising result is that the findings on human universals are
very limited. Based on Brown’s (1991) Human universals, which gives an
overview of the debate and includes all the empirical studies and theories
on human universals after more than a century of anthropological research,
the following list can be presented, which seems to be consensual in the
discipline2:

… a language/system of communication, which allows for abstractions and

symbolization, and enables lies, has some basic universal features on the level of
grammar, and is used to create narrative and metaphor; separate terms for kin
categories, including mother and father; binary discriminations, e.g. for sex
terminology (even though there may be three or more basic sexes), elementary logical
notions, conjectural reasoning (causality); universal recognition of facial expressions
and the ability to mentalize, that is to get in the minds of others; tool making (note:
even the use of fire is not universal!) and building of shelters; Patterns of preparation
for birth, for giving birth, and for postnatal care; living in groups which claim a
certain territory.
The core of a normal family is composed of the mother and children. The biological
mother is usually expected to be the social mother and usually is. On a more or less
permanent basis there is usually a man (or men) involved, too, and he (or they) serve
minimally to give the children a status in the community and/or to be a consort to the
mother. Marriage, in the sense of a person having a publicly recognized right of
sexual access to a woman deemed eligible for child bearing, is institutionalized. While
the person is almost always a male, it need not necessarily be a single individual, nor
even a male.
Families have patterns of socialization, that is children aren’t just left to grow up on
their own; they favor their close kin, but have incest taboos to prevent sex between
genetically close kin; there are statuses and roles, prestige, a division of labor, customs
of cooperative labor, concepts of property etc., that is a social structure; men form the
dominant element; trade, attempts to predict and plan for the future, government,
leaders, laws, conflicts (usually structured around ingroup-outgroup antagonisms)
and forms of conflict regulation, ideas about responsibility and intentionality,
etiquette and hospitality including customary greetings and customs of visiting kin
and others, religious or supernatural beliefs, e.g. around disease and death, and the
practice of magic; rituals, especially initiation rites/rites de passage and mourning of
dead; asthetic standards, e.g. how to adorn bodies or shape hair, standards around
sexual attractiveness, decorative art, dance and music.

(Brown 1991, pp. 130-141)

More interesting than what is included in the list is what is not included. For
example, it has to be noted that the only rituals that seem to be universal are
around marriage, initiation and mourning of the dead. Many people think,

2
An overview from 1991 may seem outdated, but actually the relevant empirical research in the
field of anthropology came to an end before that, because research into human universals needs
to investigate societies which had no, or at least not much, contact with civilization. It is very
unlikely that in the meantime strikingly new insights were found in the field.
Christian Roesler 665

for example, that there are universals to child rearing, which is actually not the
case. Even though this is so basic to human beings, no universal structures
around child rearing could be found (Ahnert, 2010).
One has to add to these universals the striking similarities in fairy tales and
myths found all over the world (see also Goodwyn, in this volume). These
similarities are well investigated in anthropology (Aarne & Thompson, 1964).
There is common agreement in anthropology that they cannot be explained by
migration. How they actually come about has still to be regarded a mystery,
but they are definitely not biologically inherited, since the information involved
is much too complex.
One could add to this the findings from experimental research on archetypes,
namely evidence which speaks for an archetypal/collective memory. For an
overview of the results of experimental research on archetypes see Sotirova-
Kohli (2018). Even though I participated in conducting this research, I must
admit that the statistical effects that were found are very weak. In addition,
the method that was used, the Archetypal Symbol Inventory, the way it was
construed and applied were questionable.
There is no doubt that the human being is not a tabula rasa at birth. Nobody
denies today that there is an inborn capacity in children to learn language and
grammar (language acquisition device), as well as a certain preparedness to be
frightened of certain things, e.g. spiders (for an overview see Roesler 2012).
One could also add Panksepp’s neuraffective systems to this list (see Meier
and Goodwyn both in this volume). But do we really need the term archetype
to describe this, since it is very clear that these inborn mental capacities are
very basic and far from what in Jungian psychology is regarded as an archetype
(e.g. the myth of the hero)?
Why is it so important to argue that universal archetypes are transmitted on a
biological basis? If one investigates the development of the concept in Jung
himself, and his consistent denial of the importance of cultural influences and
personal experience, a certain stubbornness in Jung becomes obvious when
it comes to his archetype concept. Even when he was informed by biologists,
for example, Adolf Portmann, that his way of conceptualizing archetypes was
not supported by biology (see Shamdasani, 2003, for details), he would not
accept that argument. The same attitude can be found in Jung regarding his
assumptions on the ‘inferiority’ of Africans compared to Europeans (which
was based on his archetype theory), an issue taken up just recently in an open
letter from a group of Jungians in the British Journal of Psychotherapy, where
they state: ‘he [Jung] also failed to listen to warnings from within his circle
that his views were problematic’ (Group of Jungians, 2018, reprinted in this
Journal 2019, vol. 64, 3, p.361-6).
I would like to ask the question here: do we still continue this debate in
analytical psychology just out of loyalty to the founding father? Why do we
not take into account the obvious possibility that cultural influences and
socialization strongly form unconscious symbolization as well as the way we
666 Introductory overview

organize our inner imagery? A human being is always born into a social
community and culture, and can literally not survive without that. So it is very
unlikely that there is any mental pattern that is preformed, in other words, pre-
existent before any cultural influence. Contemporary anthropological theories
such as the ‘Dual Inheritance Theory’ (Paul, 2015) even stress the point that
the findings on human cultures show that cultural influences are much stronger
and can even overcome genetic imprinting.
Thomas Kirsch believed that this attitude in Jung and the Jungians is a result
of a cultural complex stemming from the split between Jung and Freud:

As Jung was so marginalized, the early Jungians developed a defensive superiority

which denigrated anything to do with early developmental issues, personal
unconscious conflicts, and defence structures. Meanwhile they tended to emphasize
the spiritual, the archetypal, and the transcendent. Anything to do with personal
unconscious material was seen as less important and less relevant than the larger
archetypal issues.

(Kirsch, 2004, p. 191)

Structures or processes?
Some authors have argued that instead of conceptualizing archetypes as fixed
structures, they should be regarded as the products of universal processes
(e.g. McDowell 2001, Saunders & Skar, 2001, Mills 2018, and Hogenson
in this volume); often these authors make use of Dynamic Systems Theory
(see Krieger in this volume). This would eliminate the problem of where
these archetypal structures are stored, for example in the genetic code, in
the brain, in some transcendental sphere etc. In his investigation on the
archetype of the wounded healer, Merchant (2012) suggests that the
Freudian idea of a primary process could be used to explain how universal
images, for example in dreams, come about. If archetypes are seen as a
result of certain ways of unconscious meaning making, it would no longer
be necessary to assume that these images and meaning-making structures
have to be present at birth, before any individual experience. Hogenson (in
this volume) even argues that by leaving out this perspective of dynamic
systems and their properties, Jung has been greatly misunderstood,
especially when it comes to his archetype theory. However, this would
imply that the images and symbolic forms (Pietikainen 1998) used for this
kind of archetypal imagery are taken from experience, so that not the
images, but the process of putting them together is archetypal.

A proposal for a solution

From a scholarly, academic point of view, it is highly dissatisfying that there is
no explanatory theory at hand for how universal archetypes come about, and I
Christian Roesler 667

do not want to diminish the point here that there is a strong need to continue
the debate in order to finally attain such a theory. On the other hand, this
situation is far from being unique in the sciences. In astrophysics for example,
many phenomena are well investigated and empirically grounded, without
any theory at hand to explain them. In medicine, there are even treatment
methods, which have been applied for many years successfully, without
anybody having the slightest idea of why they work. In this sense, in
analytical psychology, I think it is possible to say that there is at least clinical
evidence for archetypal patterns and images arising in psychotherapeutic
processes even though we cannot explain how they come about in the
individual. Personally I think that cultural transmission plays a much bigger
role here than is usually admitted in Jungian psychology (Roesler, 2012). But
I think it is possible to work with the concept regardless of how archetypes
are transmitted.
While suggesting this, I would still strongly stress the point that the
inflationary use of the term ‘archetype’ and its application to an endless
number of phenomena is neither supported by the state of the art in
relevant disciplines, as pointed out above, nor has it contributed to the
credibility of analytical psychology. On the contrary, this has damaged its
reputation. Therefore I propose to restrict the use of the term ‘archetype’ to
a small set of motifs and patterns, which constitute a map of
transformational processes of the psyche in the sense of individuation and
psychotherapeutic change. To restrict the term ‘archetype’ to
transformational processes in the psyche would also parallel the insight
from anthropology, that universal rituals are centred on passages in the
course of life, respectively in the development of the personality (rites de
passage, initiation, marriage and the passage from life to death). As I
understand it, Jung originally developed his archetype concept to describe
the transformational process that he himself experienced in the years after
his break with Freud. The archetypal figures of the shadow, anima/animus,
the wise old man/psychopomp, the great mother, the trickster and divine
child are all part of this map of psychological transformation, all of which
Jung claims are universal. This is a hypothesis which can well be, and
should be, investigated empirically, i.e. actual psychotherapeutic processes
should be investigated to determine whether they follow this map. How
this can be accomplished will be demonstrated with the example of
Structural Dream Analysis (see below; Roesler 2018b). To restrict the use
of the term would also parallel other arguments in relevant disciplines. For
example, in Meier’s paper (in this volume), she assumes that basic needs,
which can be found in infants universally, could be conceptualized as
archetypal dispositions. This view is theoretically and empirically grounded
in the neuroscientific theory of Panksepp’s neuroaffective systems. But
again, it is strongly emphasised in this theory that these innate dispositions
develop through an interplay with environmental conditions.
668 Introductory overview

Analytical psychology, psychoanalysis and contemporary psychotherapy research

Jungian psychotherapy has succeeded in becoming an integral part of the field
of psychotherapy in the healthcare systems of many countries all over the
world. In recent years in a number of countries, Jungians have come under
pressure to provide empirical evidence for the efficacy of their approach.
On the other hand the empirical paradigm in psychotherapeutical research
is linked to controversy about how to study and quantify the effects of
psychotherapy.

Psychotherapy Research

Levels of evidence. In empirical research there is a differentiation between

different levels of studies (Wampold & Imel, 2015). The highest level or Gold
Standard is the Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT), with an experimental and
a control group and participants who are randomly divided into these groups.
Only RCTs can provide proof of the efficacy of a psychotherapy method,
which means that the effects in the patients are a result of the method alone
and not of other extratherapeutic factors (i.e. internal validity). In general only
RCTs are accepted as a proof of the efficacy of the psychotherapy method. In
recent years though, there has been increasing discussion about the validity of
RCTs since, though their internal validity is high, their external validity, its
applicability to everyday practice, is low (Westen & Morrison 2001). Several
researchers have argued for natural studies, which are conducted in everyday
practice and therefore are much better and more applicable to real practice
conditions. Generally speaking prospective data are more valid then
retrospective, since retrospective studies are subject to biases, for example, only
patients who benefitted from the therapy participated.

Evidence base of psychodynamic psychotherapies

Though not well known even to many psychoanalytic practitioners, there is
a long history of effectiveness research in psychoanalysis. The idea of
developing manuals stems from this tradition. Today there is solid evidence
for psychodynamic psychotherapies, with some less solid results for long-term
intensive psychoanalytic treatment (see Yakeley 2018, for a recent overview).
The term psychodynamic psychotherapy is a broader umbrella concept for
different psychotherapy modalities applying psychoanalytic principles, so it
also includes Jungian psychotherapy.
Since the 1990s there has been an increasing number of empirical studies,
RCTs, meta-analyses and systematic reviews, which provide proof of the
efficacy of short-term and long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for a
broad range of mental disorders. The effect sizes found for improvement are
Christian Roesler 669

as large as for other evidence-based therapies, such as cognitive behavioural

therapy (CBT), so that it is no longer possible to speak of a superiority of
CBT over psychoanalysis (Leichsenring et al., 2013, 2015). The disorders
treated effectively with psychodynamic psychotherapy include depressive and
anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders, eating disorders, complicated grief,
personality disorders, substance related disorders, and posttraumatic stress
disorder.

Most of these studies investigated short-term psychodynamic psychotherapies (8 to

40 sessions). However, some evidence suggests that long-term psychodynamic
psychotherapy (12–36 months) in complex mental disorders is effective. In several
meta-analyses, long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy was significantly more
effective at improving target problems, general psychiatric symptoms, and personality
and social functioning than were shorter or less intensive forms of treatment in
patients with complex mental disorders, defined as chronic mental disorders,
personality disorders, or multiple comorbid disorders. These findings are consistent
with data on dose–effect relations, which suggest that for many patients with complex
mental disorders, including chronic mental disorders and personality disorders, short-
term psychotherapy is not sufficient. Moreover, some evidence indicates that long-
term treatments have better longer-term outcomes following cessation of therapy than
do short-term treatments, and that effect sizes might not become evident until some
time after treatment has ceased, suggesting the need for longer-term follow up.

(Yakeley, 2018, p. 5)

An example of the findings regarding the differences between long-term and

short-term psychotherapies is the Munich depression RCT study (Huber et al.,
2012), which compared long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy with short-
term psychodynamic psychotherapy and CBT in the treatment of chronically
depressed patients. There were no differences between the treatment conditions
at the end of therapy, but after one-year post therapy the psychoanalytic
treatment resulted in significantly higher effect sizes for a number of measures.
These differences between the treatment conditions increased in a three-year
follow-up, so that in the CBT condition up to 60% of the patients, even
those who had initially positive results, experienced a relapse to a clinically
significant condition of depression, whereas the number of patients in the
psychoanalytic treatment who did not fulfil the criteria for a clinically
significant depression increased from the end of therapy to the three-year
follow-up.
Apart from these findings on outcome, process research has provided evidence
for a connection between positive treatment results and specific psychoanalytic
treatment methods, for example, focus on emotions. Therapist facilitation of
patient affective experience/expression was positively associated with treatment
improvements, and this relationship probably exists independently of the
influence of other factors. The results suggest a 30% difference in success rate
between patients who receive an affective therapeutic focus and those who do
670 Introductory overview

not. It was also found that if transference interpretations focus on the central
unconscious need of the patient, this is positively related with the development
of the therapeutic relationship and the outcome.
Even though there has been considerable research on psychodynamic
therapies, there are still a number of problems connected with investigating
psychoanalytic treatments:

These challenges include the following: the poor methodology of many existing
studies, such as unclearly defined patient samples or treatment methods, absence of
adequate controls, and insufficient monitoring of adherence to the treatment model
and inter-rater reliability; resistance within the psychoanalytic community to research
methods such as the manualisation of treatments, randomisation of patients,
recording of therapy sessions, studying of narrowly defined research samples that are
not representative of clinical practice, and scepticism within the community as to
whether unconscious conflicts, defences, and fantasies can be measured; and, finally,
difficulties in investigating longer-term treatments and outcomes.

(Yakeley, 2018, p. 4)

Common factor models in psychotherapy research

For some years now there has been a trend towards looking at common factors in
different schools and models of psychotherapy, instead of comparing the results
of different schools in the sense of a competition. There is also a shift away from
manualized treatments focusing on specific disorders towards transdiagnostic
treatment methods, which of course supports the approach psychoanalytic
psychotherapies have always taken (Yakeley, 2018, p. 5). Buchholz (in this
volume) gives an overview of the development of research paradigms in
psychotherapy research and points to fundamental changes that have taken
place here, which can be summarized in the statement: psychotherapy does not
treat symptoms which patients have, but persons who have symptoms.
The most prominent of these common factor models and also the latest,
developed from the insights found in psychotherapy research across all kinds
of schools and approaches, is the Contextual Metamodel (Wampold & Imel,
2015). The major factors in this model which are strongly correlated with
positive outcome are: the therapeutic alliance, for example, the capacity for
empathy in the therapist; the creation of hope, an expectancy of change in the
patient; allegiance, for example, the belief of the therapist in the effectiveness
of the method. Large differences in effectiveness were found, not between
schools but between individual therapists, which suggested that the personality
of the therapist seems to play a major role. All of these elements create a
holistic experience of healing, so that the average effect size of this kind of
psychotherapy is .75 - .85, which is equivalent to an 80% probability that the
patient will be better off after therapy. The most interesting point about the
Contextual Metamodel is the insight, derived from the application of empiricist
Christian Roesler 671

positivistic methodology, that the medical model of treating diseases and

symptoms by applying specified treatment methods in a certain dose, regardless
of the personality of therapist or patient, cannot be applied to the understanding
of process and outcome of psychotherapy. Instead, the relationship of the two
persons and how it is handled by the therapist, has to be seen as the major
factor which influences outcome. How highly effective therapists actually do
that, is still, at least in large part, a mystery. What we experience in the field of
psychotherapy research at the moment is what could be called a paradigm
shift. Even though RCTs will continue to be the gold standard for the next few
years, the whole model behind this kind of research is in decline.
The Contextual Metamodel has strong parallels with imperatives for therapy
formulated already by Jung, who pointed to the importance of a training
analysis for developing the personality of the therapist. He also emphasized the
personal therapeutic relationship over the method as well as the unconscious
interaction between the two persons, which today is discussed as a placebo
effect or creation of positive expectancy.

Research on Jungian Psychotherapy

In the field of psychotherapy research the scepticism about empirical methods in
the community of Jungian practitioners has created some obstacles to the
conduct of effectiveness studies (see below). Practitioners worry that research
might interfere with the therapeutic relationship and have raised questions
about how to catch the details of the psychotherapeutic process methodically.
The studies reported below (see table 1) have found solutions to these
questions. Different measures have been designed to tap into different aspects
of the psychotherapeutic process characteristic of analytical psychotherapy.
Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnostics (OPD) have been developed
to systemize diagnostic steps in psychoanalysis and this procedure has
been adapted to Jungian psychotherapy (Junghan 2002). The ‘Heidelberger
Umstrukturierungsskala’ (Heidelberg scale for changes in personality
structure) and measures for analytic foci, therapeutic alliance and transference
are just a few examples of the tools that have been developed to
systematically investigate different aspects of the psychotherapeutic process.
As there are no randomized controlled trials and the internal validity of
the above-mentioned studies can be questioned, at the moment there is no
conclusion possible regarding the efficacy of Jungian psychotherapy. On
the other hand, due to their naturalistic designs, the reported studies have
to be considered high in external validity, for instance, applicability to
everyday practice conditions. All of the studies found improvements on every
dimension investigated, with moderate to large effect sizes on symptom
reduction, well being, interpersonal problems, change of personality structure,
reduction of health care utilisation, and changes in everyday life conduct. All
 672

Table 1. Overview of studies investigating Jungian psychotherapy

Authors Study Design N Results

Mattanza et al. Praxisstudie Analytische Langzeittherapie Prospective naturalistic 37 d = 0.71 – 1.48
2006 (PAL) Schweiz (Outpatient analytical outcome study w/
long-term psychotherapy Switzerland) follow-up, one group
design
Rubin & Powers San Francisco Psychotherapy Research Prospective naturalistic 39 (57)
2005 Project outcome study w/
follow-up, one group
design
Significant
reductions in
SCL-90-R, IIP
Tschuschke et al. Praxisstudie ambulante Psychotherapie Prospective naturalistic 81 Effectiveness given
2009, Schweiz (PAP-S) (Naturalistic outcome study, for all schools
Tschuschke psychotherapy study on outclient multigroup design investigated
et al. 2014 treatment in Switzerland)
Keller et al. 1998 Berlin Jungian Study Catamnestic/ 111 Reduction of
retrospective study symptoms to
“normal health
state” for 88%
Breyer et al. Konstanz Studie – A German consumer Catamnestic/ 646 Significant benefits in
1997 reports study retrospective study health and well-
being
Introductory overview
Christian Roesler 673

of these effects were stable in follow-up, up to seven years after therapy. There
are even further positive changes between termination and follow-up. The
majority of patients seem to have benefited from Jungian psychotherapy and
health care utilization parameters were significantly reduced, so that there are
also indicators for cost effectiveness. These results are comparable to the
effects found for psychodynamic therapies in general. With an average of only
90 sessions, Jungian psychotherapy is a very time-effective and cost-effective
form of long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy. All of these results point
clearly in the direction of the effectiveness of Jungian psychotherapy (for
more details see Roesler, 2018a).
At this point it could be questioned whether Jungian psychotherapy should
still be regarded as different or special in regard to other psychoanalytic
approaches. If Jungian psychotherapy regarded itself as just one of a field of
different psychodynamic approaches there would be no need to provide
empirical evidence for the efficacy of Jungian psychotherapy as a specialized
method.
A major problem that comes to light in the overview of the studies is the fact
that Jungian analysts tend to be very reluctant to participate in empirical
studies. As a consequence, the German Association of Analytical Psychology
and its training institutes have decided that future training candidates will
have to apply a set of empirical measures (Symptom Rating, life satisfaction,
OPD) to their training cases in order to form a database and to make on-
going quality management possible (Keller, 2018). In the long run this aims at
creating a more open attitude to empirical research in the coming generations
of Jungian analysts. On the other hand, this process aims at stabilizing the
currently comfortable position Jungian therapy has in the German healthcare
system for the future by delivering empirical results about the effectiveness of
the method and applying standard quality management processes.

Conclusion
I think the problems pointed out above in recognizing relevant research and
contemporary theorizing in relevant disciplines has to do with an idealization
of Jung, which is still present in the Jungian community today. One might say
there is too much focus on Jung the person and his way of living, instead of
focusing on his published works as a theory. It could be questioned, for
example, whether the Red Book has any relevance for psychology at all, apart
from Jung himself, which may also be the reason why he did not want it to be
published. In a certain way, many Jungians today seem to apply a pre-modern
model of science, in which the most important thing is what authorities, for
example Jung, have to say. In contrast to this, the core of what forms an
academic and scientific attitude today is a very basic scepticism when it comes
to theories and authorities. As I understand it, Jung attempted to create, on the
674 Introductory overview

basis of his personal records, of which the Red Book is a part, a general theory of
transformational processes in the psyche, and this published work is what he
wanted to be discussed. That at a certain stage of this transformational process
something like ‘the Anima’ appears, has to be regarded first-hand as a personal
experience of Jung’s; whether this is a model to be generalized to all human
beings is a hypothesis to be tested. But because of the idealization of Jung as a
person these theoretical assumptions are often dealt with in the Jungian
community as if they were sacrosanct. In its extreme form, it amounts to what
has been called ‘Jungian reductionism’ (Bassil-Morozow & Hockley 2016),
where Jungians ‘identify’ anima and animus figures, wise old men and great
mothers in dreams, myths and case material, without reflecting on alternative
explanations (which Merchant, in this volume, does in an exemplary way). It
may be true that you do not see archetypes if you do not have an idea of them;
however, it may also be true that once you are convinced that there are
archetypes, you will find them everywhere. What is often not considered is
that, once one has a certain theoretical viewpoint, for example, on how
transformation happens in the psyche, our mind tends to select information
which supports our theory, and we tend to ignore information that contradicts
it. We simply do not like our theories to be disproven. This may apply
especially to a theory that has become part of one’s personality, for instance,
via training analysis. That is the reason why in academia and the sciences a
general attitude of scepticism is cultivated, so that we do not fall into this trap.
Therefore, I would strongly criticize publications from the Jungian community
which pick out very selective findings and theories that support Jungian theory
and systematically ignore others. A scientific attitude would include a
commitment to search actively for information which challenges and puts into
question one’s own theories and assumptions. In addition, it would include a
commitment to deal with Jung’s theory as just a theory, which can be proven
or disqualified, and with Jung as a historical person, who without any doubt
made a highly unique contribution to 20th century psychology, but who could
also be wrong.
It seems to me that our Freudian colleagues have reached a more mature point
in how they deal with their founding father. As I mentioned above, Mark Solms
for example had no problem in rejecting Freud’s very basic assumption of ‘the id’.
What is needed, from my point of view, is what could be called a systematic and
critical reading of Jung’s theories, which is not only based on his personal
experience, but also on the theoretical and societal environment in which he
lived (an outstanding example of this is Shamdasani, 2003).
Again, I would like to stress the point here, that there is a strong need for actual
empirical investigation into our basic theoretical assumptions. To give an
example: I have created a research method which allows for the analysis of
dream series from analytic psychotherapies (Roesler, 2018b). After analysing
15 cases with this method, we were able to identify general patterns in the
development of dream imagery over the course of successful therapies (Roesler,
Christian Roesler 675

2018c). In a number of cases we found a type of dream in which a baby or child

appears, and these dreams mark a turning point in the course of the therapy. We
also found that the dream imagery changes significantly after these dreams. This,
of course, points to Jung’s idea that the archetype of the (divine) child conveys
change and points to the future. This is an example of how Jungian
assumptions can well be investigated in the form of a scientific empirical
framework, for example, from an objective point of view, without projecting
the theory into the material.
At this point I would like to come back to the above-mentioned split which can
be found in Jung’s attitude to academia and empirical research. It seems to me
that this split is continued in the Jungian community as a result of idealization
of the founding father. This attitude of systematically ignoring relevant
research and contemporary theories started with Jung himself. So, for example,
when using anthropological research for his theory building, Jung quotes Levy-
Bruhl (who was more a philosopher influenced by 19th century science) over
60 times in his works; instead of referring to anthropologists actually doing
field research in his time, for instance, Malinowski (only one reference), who
investigated the universal occurrence of the Oedipus complex, which should
have been of interest to Jung. Jung’s use of the term ‘empirical’ in his works is
comparably problematic. When he states, for example, that the anima has to
be seen as an empirical fact, this is neither appropriate today nor in the days of
Jung. This loses sight of the fact that the anima is a theoretical concept which
tries to explain empirical phenomena. He did not reflect on or even care about
the epistemological debates of his time, e.g. the discussion between Karl Popper
and the logical empirists of the Vienna Circle, which laid the ground for
today’s psychology’s epistemology. There is a tendency of isolating oneself
from contemporary academic debates and scientific insights, as if they were not
at all relevant to Jungian psychology. From my point of view, this attitude has
done great harm to the scientific reputation of analytical psychology; other
Jungian scholars have pointed this out much earlier:

We run the risk of working with increasingly outdated and inaccurate models of the
human mind if we avoid subjecting them to the rigour of scientific scepticism, for fear
that the numinous or spiritual will be destroyed by the scientific advances in
understanding the way the mind actually works, the ways in which it processes
information.

(Knox, 2001, p. 616)

We Jungians have to acknowledge that we do not live on an epistemological

island, and if we continuously neglect the development of theories and
empirical findings in psychology and other disciplines, we run the risk of falling
out of the scientific world completely. On the other hand, and this is the
opposite side of the split, throughout his life Jung attempted to find a way to
676 Introductory overview

deal with a much deeper split that goes through the modern world, which could
be termed the Cartesian split, the division of mind and matter. This split has led to
a contemporary psychology which has no place for meaning and personal
experience, not to speak of transcendence. You will not find the term ‘soul’ in
most of today’s psychological dictionaries, even though psychology means
‘knowledge of the soul’. That Jung attempted to conceptualize the soul and
give it a place in psychology is probably the reason why so many people are
drawn to Jungian psychology. And, as we can see above in the discussion of the
paradigm shift in contemporary psychotherapy research, in some fields of
psychology the deterministic model seems to be coming to an end. But I am
strongly convinced that it is no solution for this problem of modernity to go
back to pre-modern times and attitudes, a way that for example Rudolf Steiner
took, something of which I would definitely not want to be part of. I think it is
the task of Jungians today to continue the attempts Jung made to bridge the
split, but we cannot accomplish that by ignoring contemporary science, instead
we have to include it.

References
Aarne, A. & Thompson, S. (1964). The Types of the Folktale. A Classification and
Bibliography. Helsinki: Academia Scientarium Fennica.
Ahnert, L. (2010). Wieviel Mutter braucht ein Kind? Heidelberg: Spektrum.
Bassil-Morozow, H. & Hockley, L. (2016). Jungian Film Studies. London: Routledge.
Brown, D.E. (1991). Therapeutisches Arbeiten mit Symbolen Human Universals. New
York: McGraw Hill.
Dorst, B. (2015). 2. Aufl. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Goodwyn, E. (2010). ‘Approaching archetypes: reconsidering innateness’. Journal of
Analytical Psychology, 55, 4, 502-521.
——— (2011). Jung in the 21st Century: Evolution and Archetype, vol. I. New York:
Routledge.
Hogenson, G. B. (2004). ‘Archetypes: emergence and the psyche’s deep structure’. In
Analytical Psychology: Contemporary Perspectives in Jungian Psychology, eds. J.
Cambray & L. Carter. Hove & New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Huber D., Zimmermann J., Henrich G., et al. (2012). ‘Comparison of cognitive
behaviour therapy with psychoanalytic and psychodynamic therapy for depressed
patients — a three-year follow-up study’. Zeitschrift für Psychosomatik und
Medizinische Psychotherapie, 58, 299–316.
Jung, C. G. (1949). ‘Forward to Harding: Woman’s Mysteries’. CW 18.
——— (1992). Experimental Researches. CW 2.
Junghan, M. (2002). Die Anwendung der Strukturachse der OPD in der Analytischen
Psychologie. In: G. Rudolf, T. Grande, P. Henningsen (Eds.), Die Struktur der
Persönlichkeit. Stuttgart: Schattauer.
Kaplan-Solms, K. & Solms, M. (2000). Clinical Studies in Neuro-psychoanalysis:
Introduction to a Depth Neuropsychology. London: Karnac.
Kehyayan, A., Best, K., Schmeing, J. B., Axmacher, N., Kessler, H. (2013). ‘Neural
activity during free association to conflict–related sentences’. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 7, 705. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00705.
Christian Roesler 677

Keller, W. (2018). ‘Quality management and empirical research activities in Jungian

Psychotherapy in Germany’. In: Roesler, C. (ed.), Research in Analytical Psychology.
London: Routledge.
Kirsch, T. (2004). ‘Cultural complexes in Jung and Freud’. In: Singer, T. & Kimbles, S.L.
(eds.), The Cultural Complex. New York: Routledge.
Knox, J. (2001). ‘Memories, fantasies, archetypes: an exploration of some connections
between cognitive science and analytical psychology’. Journal of Analytical
Psychology, 46, 4, 613-635.
——— (2003). Archetype, Attachment, Analysis. Jungian Psychology and the Emergent
Mind. Hove: Brunner-Routledge.
——— (2009). ‘Mirror neurons and embodied simulation in the development of
archetypes and self-agency’. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 54, 3, 307-323.
Leichsenring, F., Abbass, A., Luyten, P., Hilsenroth, M., Rabung, S. (2013). ‘The
emerging evidence for long-term psychodynamic therapy’. Psychodynamic
Psychiatry, 41, 361–84.
Leichsenring, F., Luyten, P., Hilsenroth, M.J., et al. (2015). ‘Psychodynamic therapy
meets evidence-based medicine: a systematic review using updated criteria’. Lancet
Psychiatry, 2, 648–60.
McDowell, M. J. (2001). ‘Principle of organization: a dynamic-systems view of the
archetype-as-such’. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 46, 4, 637-654.
Mattanza, G., Jakobsen, T., Hurt, J. (2006). ‘Jung’sche Psychotherapie ist effizient’. In:
G. Mattanza, I. Meier, M. Schegel (Eds.), Seele und Forschung (Soul and Research).
Basel: Karger.
Meier, C. A. (1994). Die Empirie des Unbewussten. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des
Assoziationsexperiments von C. G. Jung. Band 1 (2. Aufl.). Einsiedeln: Daimon.
Merchant, J. (2009). ‘A reappraisal of classical archetype theory and its implications for
theory and practice’. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 54, 3, 339–58.
——— (1998). Affective Neuroscience: the Foundations of Human and Animal
Emotions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Paul, R.A. (2015). Mixed Messages – Cultural and Genetic Inheritance in the
Constitution of Human Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Petchkovsky, L., Petchkovsky, M., Morris, P., Dickson, P., Montgomery, D., Dwyer, J.,
Burnett, P., Strudwick, M. (2011).‘The fMRI correlates of psychological
“complexes”: Exploring the neurobiology of internal conflict’. Journal of US-China
Medical Science, 8, 11, 647-660.
Pietikainen, P. (1998). ‘Archetypes as symbolic forms’. Journal of Analytical Psychology,
43, 3, 325-343.
Roesler, C. (2012). ‘Are archetypes transmitted more by culture than biology? Questions
arising from conceptualizations of the archetype’. Journal of Analytical Psychology,
57, 2, 223-246.
——— (ed.) (2018a). Research in Analytical Psychology. Empirical Research. London:
Routledge.
——— (2018b). ‘Structural Dream Analysis: a narrative research method for
investigating the meaning of dream series in analytical psychotherapies’.
International Journal of Dream Research, 11, 1, 21-29.
——— (2018c). Dream content corresponds with dreamer’s psychological problems and
personality structure and with improvement in psychotherapy. A typology of dream
patterns in dream series of patients in analytical psychotherapy. Dreaming, 28 (4),
303-321.
Roesler, C. & van Uffelen, B. (2018): ‘Complexes and the unconscious: From the
Association Experiment to recent fMRI studies’. In: Roesler, C. (ed.): Research in
Analytical Psychology. London: Routledge.
678 Introductory overview

Rubin, S.I., & Powers, N. (2005). ‘Analyzing the San Francisco Psychotherapy Research
Project’. www.sirseth.net/doc/SFresearch.pdf
Saunders, P. & Skarr, P. (2001): ‘Archetypes, complexes and self-organisation’. Journal
of Analytical Psychology, 46, 2, pp. 305-323.
Shamdasani, S. (2003): ‘Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology: The Dream of a
Science’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Solms, M., Turnbull, O. (2005). The Brain and the Inner World. New York: Other Press.
Sotirova-Kohli, M. (2018). ‘Experimental Approaches to the Study of the Archetype’. In:
Roesler, C. (ed.), Research in Analytical Psychology. London: Routledge.
Stevens, A. (2003). Archetype Revisited: An Updated Natural History Of The Self.
Toronto: Inner City Books.
Tschuschke, V., Crameri, A., Koehler, M., Berglar, J., Muthi, K., Staczan, P., Von Wyl,
A., Schulthess, P., Koemeda-Lutz, M. (2014). ‘The role of therapists’ treatment
adherence, professional experience, therapeutic alliance, and clients’ severity of
psychological problems: Prediction of treatment outcome in eight different
psychotherapy approaches. Preliminary results of a naturalistic study. Psychotherapy
Research, https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2014.896055.
Wampold, B.E. & Imel, Z.E. (2015). The Great Psychotherapy Debate. New York:
Routledge.
Westen, D. & Morrison, K. (2001). ‘A multidimensional meta-analysis of treatments for
depression, panic, and generalized anxiety disorder: an empirical examination of the
status of empiricially suported therapies’. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 69, 875-899.
Yakeley, J. (2018). ‘Psychoanalysis in modern mental health practice’. Lancet Psychiatry.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366 (18)30052-X
Young, J.E., Klosko, J. S. & Weishaar, M. E (2005). Schematherapie: ein
praxisorientiertes Handbuch. Junfermann.

TRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT

Cet article donne une vue d’ensemble des articles de ce volume, qui ont initialement été
présentés à la Conférence de l’AIPA et de l’Université de Bâle, du 18 au 20 octobre
2018. Le but de la conférence était de mettre en rapport les concepts de base de la
psychologie analytique avec les recherches et les avancées scientifiques, à l’endroit
même où Jung commença sa carrière universitaire, l’Université de Bâle. La conférence
s’est axée sur trois domaines: la relation entre conscience et inconscient et la théorie
des complexes, la théorie des archétypes, et le statut de la psychothérapie analytique
dans la recherche actuelle sur la psychothérapie. Le but de la conférence était de faire
progresser le développement de la théorie en psychologie analytique en lien avec les
résultats et les avancées dans les champs de connaissance voisins. Dans le premier
domaine, les intervenants ont souligné les éléments probants venant particulièrement
des neurosciences pour soutenir les conceptualisations psychodynamiques de
l’inconscient, et de même pour ce qu’il en est des complexes. Par contre, le concept
d’archétypes est controversé. La majorité des intervenants remettent en question les
conceptualisations biologiques de Jung sur les archétypes. Ils parlent plutôt en termes
de reformulations venant de la théorie culturelle, de la théorie des systèmes
dynamiques ainsi que d’autres approches. Dans le champ de la recherche en
Christian Roesler 679

psychothérapie, les intervenants ont souligné le besoin profond de mener plus d’études
empiriques sur les résultats de la psychothérapie Jungienne, mais aussi d’un réexamen
approfondi des modèles standards pour ces études.

Mots clés: Psychologie Analytique, sciences contemporaines, études empiriques,

recherches sur la psychothérapie, milieu universitaire

Dieser Artikel vermittelt einen einführenden Überblick über die Beiträge in diesem Band,
die ursprünglich auf der gemeinsamen Konferenz der IAAP und der Universität Basel
(Basel, 18. bis 20. Oktober 2018) gehalten wurden. Ziel der Konferenz war es,
Kernkonzepte der Analytischen Psychologie mit Theoriebildung und Forschung aus
den akademischen Wissenschaften an dem Ort zusammenzubringen, an dem Jung seine
akademische Laufbahn begann, der Universität Basel. Die Konferenz fokussierte drei
Bereiche: das Verhältnis von Bewußtsein und Unbewußtem und die Theorie der
Komplexe, die Theorie der Archetypen und den Status der Analytischen
Psychotherapie in der zeitgenössischen Psychotherapieforschung. Ziel der Konferenz
war es, die Theoriebildung in der Analytischen Psychologie in Bezug auf Ergebnisse
und Erkenntnisse in benachbarten Wissensgebieten zu fördern. Im ersten Bereich
wiesen die Autoren besonders auf die soliden neurowissenschaftlichen Beweise für die
psychodynamischen Konzeptualisierungen des Unbewußten und auch für das Konzept
der Komplexe hin. Im Gegensatz dazu ist das Konzept der Archetypen umstritten,
wobei die Mehrheit der Autoren Jungs biologische Konzeptualisierungen der
Archetypen in Frage stellt und statt dessen für Umformulierungen aus der Perspektive
der Kulturtheorie, der Theorie dynamischer Systeme und anderer Ansätze spricht. Auf
dem Gebiet der Psychotherapieforschung wiesen die Autoren auf die dringende
Notwendigkeit hin, empirischere Studien über die Ergebnisse der Jungschen
Psychotherapie zu betreiben, aber auch Standardforschungsdesigns auf diesem Gebiet
gründlich zu überdenken.

Schlüsselwörter: Analytische Psychologie, heutige Wissenschaft, empirische Forschung,

Psychotherapieforschung, Wissenschaftsbetrieb

Questo articolo offre una panoramica introduttiva degli articoli in questo numero
originariamente presentati alla conferenza congiunta della IAAP e dell’Università di
Basilea, Basilea, dal 18 al 20 ottobre 2018. Lo scopo della conferenza era quello di
riunire i concetti di base della psicologia analitica con la teorizzazione e la ricerca delle
scienze accademiche, proprio nel luogo in cui Jung ha iniziato la sua carriera
accademica, l’Università di Basilea. La conferenza si è incentrata su tre campi: la
relazione tra conscio ed inconscio e la teoria dei complessi; la teoria degli archetipi; e
lo stato della psicoterapia analitica nella ricerca in psicoterapia contemporanea. Lo
scopo della conferenza era quello di favorire lo sviluppo della teoria nella psicologia
analitica in relazione ai risultati e alle intuizioni nelle aree contigue della conoscenza.
Nella prima area, i partecipanti hanno isottolineato prove concrete, specialmente dalle
neuroscienze, per le concettualizzazioni psicodinamiche dell’inconscio, nonché per il
concetto di complessi. In contrasto con questo, il concetto di archetipi è controverso,
680 Introductory overview

con la maggioranza dei partecipanti che mettono in discussione le concettualizzazioni

biologiche di Jung sugli archetipi, e parlano invece di riformulazioni dal punto di vista
della teoria culturale, della teoria dei sistemi dinamici e di altri approcci. Nel campo
della ricerca psicoterapeutica, i partecipanti hanno sottolineato la profonda necessità
di condurre più studi empirici sui risultati della psicoterapia junghiana, e allo stesso
tempo di una riconsiderazione approfondita dei progetti di ricerca standard sul campo.

Parole chiave: Psicologia analitica, scienze contemporanee, ricerca empirica, ricerca in

psicoterapia, università

В этой статье представлен ознакомительный обзор докладов, прозвучавших на

объединенной конференции IAAP и университета Базеля, которая прошла 18-20
октября 2018 года в Базеле. Целью конференции было совместное рассмотрение
центральных понятий аналитической психологии и научных теоретических и
эмпирических исследований. Мы хотели это сделать в том самом месте, в котором
Юнг начал свою академическую карьеру – в университете Базеля. В фокусе внимание
конференции были три сферы: отношения сознательного, бессознательного и теории
комплексов; теория архетипов; статус аналитической психотерапии в современном
терапевтическом исследовании. Целью конференции явилось развитие теории
аналитической психологии с учетом результатов и открытий соседних областей
знания. Что касается первой сферы, то докладчики говорили о весомых
свидетельствах, особенно из области нейронаук, в пользу психодинамической
концептуализации бессознательного, а также в пользу концепции комплексов.
Понятие архетипов, напротив, оказалось противоречивым, большинство авторов
выразили сомнения в биологической природе архетипов, существование которой
подразумевал Юнг. Говорилось о необходимости переформулирования теории
архетипов с учетом точки зрения культурной теории, теории динамических систем и
других подходов. Что касается исследований в психотерапии, то докладчики указали
на необходимость проведения большего числа эмпирических исследования в области
юнгианской психотерапии, а также на потребность в пересмотре дизайна
исследования в этой области.

Ключевые слова: аналитическая психология, современная наука, эмпирическое

исследование, исследования в области психотерапии, академические знания

El siguiente artículo ofrece una reseña introductoria de los trabajos inicialmente

presentados en la Conferencia Conjunta de la IAAP y la Universidad de Basilea,
Basilea Octubre 18-20, 2018. El objetivo de la Conferencia fue integrar los conceptos
centrales de la psicología analítica con la teoría e investigación de las ciencias
académicas, en el mismo lugar en el cual Jung comenzó su carrera académica, la
Universidad de Basilea. La conferencia se focalizó en tres campos: la relación entre
consciencia e inconsciente y la teoría de los complejos; la teoría de los arquetipos; y el
estatus de la psicoterapia analítica en la investigación en psicoterapia contemporánea.
La meta de la Conferencia fue promover el desarrollo de teoría en psicología analítica
con relación a los resultados e insights de otras áreas contiguas de conocimiento. En la
Christian Roesler 681

primer área, los autores dieron cuenta de la sólida evidencia, especialmente desde las
neurociencias para las conceptualizaciones de inconsciente, y también para el concepto
de complejo. En contraste con esto, el concepto de arquetipo es controversial, con una
mayoría de autores cuestionando las conceptualizaciones biológicas sobre arquetipo de
Jung, y en su lugar planteando reformulaciones desde las perspectivas de la teoría
cultural, la teoría de los sistemas dinámicos y otros abordajes. En el campo de la
investigación en psicoterapia, los autores señalaron la profunda necesidad de conducir
más estudios empíricos sobre los resultados de la psicoterapia Junguiana, pero también
de una reconsideración minuciosa de los diseños estándar de investigación en el campo.

Palabras clave: Psicología Analítica, ciencias contemporáneas, investigación empírica,

investigación en psicoterapia, academia

这篇文章是对本期发表的文章的介绍性综述, 这些文章最早发表于2018年10月12-20
日, 在巴塞尔的巴塞尔大学举办的IAAP联合会议上。会议的目标是把分析心理学的核
心概念和理论及来自学术科学的研究汇聚起来, 会议地点恰好是荣格开始其学术生涯
的地方巴塞尔大学。会议聚焦于三个领域:意识与无意识的关系及情结理论；原型理
论；当代心理治疗研究中分析心理治疗的地位。会议的目的是结合相关知识领域的成
果与洞察, 来进一步发展分析心理学的理论。在第一个领域中, 发言者列举了一些可
以支持无意识心理动力概念、以及支持情结概念的具体证据, 特别是来自神经科学的
证据。与此相反, 关于原型的概念则富有争议, 大多数的发言者质疑荣格关于原型的生
物学概念, 并认为应该用文化理论、动力系统理论及其它取向的视角替代原来的理论,
从而重新理解原型。在心理治疗研究的领域, 发言者指出对荣格心理治疗效果的实证
研究极为匮乏, 但也指出我们也十分需要对这一领域研究设计标准的彻底反思。

关键词: 分析心理学, 当代科学, 实证研究, 心理治疗研究, 学术界