Miembros de la C.G. Jung Foundation for Analytical Psychology of New York

Centro de Referencia para la Formación y Difusión del Pensamiento Junguiano en Argentina





Cursos y Seminarios 2016

Curso Anual de Psicología Junguiana 2016

Diplomado Universitario en Psicoterapia y Clínica Analítica Junguiana 2016

Grupos de Estudio

Atención Terapéutica

Textos y Artículos

Sitios de interés


Informes e Inscripciones



Miembros de la C.G. Jung Foundation for Analytical Psychology of New York

Centro de Referencia para la Formación y Difusión del Pensamiento Junguiano en Argentina

Para mayor información, comunicarse a:

(011) 4777 - 5130 




  • NOTE: This is a Google Translator version. Translation mistakes may be present in the text.

Actual Jungian Currents


                                                                      Prof.  Dr. Daniel Wilhelm 



"I was I asked many times about my psychotherapeutic or analytic method. I can not give this issue A strict response. The treatment is in each separate case. If a doctor tells me" is "strictly this or that" method ", doubt the therapeutic effect. (...) Psychotherapy and analysis are as diverse as the individuals themselves. "

Carl G. Jung

From Jung's death in 1961, has been in the field of analytical psychology continuous movement and expansion carried out by its main representatives, those who were emphasizing and developing some of the specific concepts of Jungian thought at the same while they integrated to the recent developments in other psychological currents, such as psychoanalytic or even produce new and creative theoretical approaches that extended for a new and original way the traditional theoretical premises and clinics of depth psychology of Jung.

It was not however until 1985, in which Andrew Samuels tried to systematize and order the principles and tenets of the emerging theoretical lines, naming the professional members of these new schools called "posjungians". Samuels said the posjungian field is characterized more by debates and discussions on the nuclear common set of accepted ideas. According to the definition of Samuels, "A posjungian is someone who can connect to, interested in, and encouraged to participate in debates posjunguianos, either on the basis of clinical interest, intellectual inquiry, or a combination of both."

During the decades of the 50 'and 60', it was accepted that analytical psychology there were two schools: "School of London" and the "school of Zurich", recognizing that the orientation of the first was mainly "clinical" while the second was mostly "symbolic".

During the 70's, however, two situations that changed this traditional division occurred: first, the growing global number of professionals graduated from the school of Zurich made ​​it became the center of international movement of analysts, the while being recognized and accepted more and more the guidelines and principles of the London School. This mutual downplayed the alleged exclusion of the terms "clinical" and "symbolic" which defined the Jungian field so far. On the other hand, the rise in the early 70 'for a third group of founders analysts named "archetypal psychology" and directed by James Hillman, ended up giving rise to a new location within the Jungian field, which since I was divided into three schools called "classical school", "evolutionary school" and "archetypal school."

The classical school includes what traditionally used to be the school of "Zurich" while evolutionary comprises what used to be the school of "London".
While each of these schools has evolved to present obvious differences, Samuels stressed that "we must not forget that they all have a common fund of theoretical concepts and clinical practice, and that each of the three schools thrives said common but privileging and emphasizing some more than other elements "background.

The classical school, in general, preserved in its work the theoretical basis and practical methodology originally introduced by Jung, which does not mean they do not save room for growth and evolution.
The evolutionary school has been linking aspects and principles of contemporary psychoanalysis, mainly the English School, emphasizing the importance of early experiences and the phenomena of transference and countertransference during analysis.
The archetypal school emphasizes the fundamental concept of "archetype", based on the same to address a specific, original whole vast phenomenology of both the dream as those related to fantasy experiences imaginal mode.

According to Andrew Samuels there are six principles, which, together, constitute the field of post-Jungian analytical psychology.
The first three are theoretical: 1) the archetype; 2) the self; 3) development of personality from infancy to old age.
The other three come from clinical practice are: 1) the analysis of transference and countertransference; 2) the symbolic experiences of the self in the analysis; and 3) the development of differentiated imagery as presents.

The order in which each of the schools makes these principles would be:

With regard to the theory, the classic school establishes this order:
a) the self
b) the archetype
c) the development of personality.

In terms of clinical practice:
a) symbolic experiences of the self
b) development of the imagery
c) analysis of transference and countertransference

For the evolutionary school, the theoretical scale would be:
a) Development of personality
b) the self
c) archetype

The order from the clinical point of view is:
a) analysis of transference and countertransference
b) symbolic experiences of the self
c) development of the imagery

For the archetypal school theoretical priority would be:
a) the archetype
b) Self
c) the development of personality

And as for the clinical context:
a) the development of imagery,
b) the symbolic experiences of the self
c) analysis of transference and countertransference.

The most relevant of each school characteristics are:

The classical Jungian school:

Most representatives of the classical school made ​​their training in the CG Jung Institute in Zurich, and many of them were or had been in analysis with Jung himself, so his findings and reflections were sent to them directly by him. David Hart, a representative of this school, defines a classic Jungian analysis as a "continuous mutual discovery that gives consciousness to the unconscious life, gradually freeing the individual from compulsion and senselessness The classical approach. - Adds Hart - it is based on a spirit of dialogue, both between conscious and unconscious, as between the two participants in the analytical process. "
Note that according to this theoretical line, the "conscious" is absolutely necessary in this process, unlike what sustains the archetypal school, for which the "I" is just one more of the many autonomous archetypal entities. In turn, the classical school differs from the evolutionary school, as it does not define development in terms of age or psychological stages, but through individual achievement of self conscious subject undergoing analysis.
Known concepts, such as archetype, inner world, individuation, symbol, dreams, self, totality, anima and animus, shadow, complex, symbolic reality, conflict between opposites, psyche, compensation, collective unconscious, etc., are the theoretical and practical bases of this discipline.
Particularly important is the emphasis the school places on the development of adult subject, especially during this stage that Jung defines as "the second half of life", in which, usually in the form of a profound spiritual crisis, the person is "driven" from the depths of his inner nature, through and force the archetype of the self, to make the way of his own individuation, their potential and sense of wholeness.

The evolutionary school:

Analytical psychology developed by Jung and his colleagues are not fully addressed the deep psychological aspects of childhood or child development, nor devoted considerable attention to the usefulness of a correct understanding of the various forms of relationships that can develop in consultation between patient and analyst. Freud and his followers, however, tried to unify the two areas of research, linking the developmental stages and early mental states with the nature of transference and countertransference, including them in psychoanalytic theory. Jung, meanwhile, showed more interest in the field of creative and symbolic activity, structure and contents of the collective psyche, devoting an important part of his psychological research to the second half of life, this being the stage of human development in which these issues were most likely to manifest.

In London, there was a group of psychoanalysts including Melanie Klein, Wilfred Bion, Donald Winnicott and John Bowlby were, they achieved very important findings in the area of children's mental development later, and in its relations with psychic adult life, the that would lead to a revision of the basic psychoanalytic theory.
They published their major works between 40-60 'and became the leading figures of the "school of object relations" that was formed within the British Psychoanalytic Society and continued its own evolution since.

At the same time, also in London, Dr. Michael Fordham and his colleagues were formed as Jungian analysts and founded the Society of Analytical Psychology. They followed with great interest the new psychoanalytic discoveries and began to undertake research to develop a coherent theory of child development with the Jungian tradition, while trying to incorporate new and relevant psychoanalytic findings, in particular those relating to the early development and transfer and countertransference, and its usefulness in the clinic.
Some Jungian analysts said Klein's vision was the best of the early psychoanalytic approaches to mental life.

The importance it had for the theory of Fordham's work Klein, Winnicott, Bion and others, especially on early object relationships and self pathologies allowed to enter the whole experience in the field of child development within the framework of Jungian psychological research.

From the conclusions obtained from his own clinical work, Fordham failed to demonstrate that the concept of "self" as was originally described by Jung, could be reformulated to integrate into the dynamics of child development through the proposal of the existence of a "self" or integrated primary, original. This integrated "self" is the original primary psychosomatic unity of the child, giving it a unique identity. Through a series of interactions with the environment, initiated both from within and from without, which Fordham called "de-integration", the subject gradually developing a set of experiences that in successive "re-integration" accumulate to over time to lead to self unique and particularly of that individual. Thus as the individuation process is performed through the self dynamic adaptations performed by its own internal space activities within the context of its surroundings.
Fordham, through its model describes the process through which the self is de-integrated or divided spontaneously. Each of the parties is active or is activated on contact and interact with the environment, and at the right time reinstates the experience through sleep, reflection and other forms of mental assimilation to carry out its development and growth. This form of trade, which in the early days mainly takes place between the child and his mother, as with the "others" that are significant, is what allows the progressive development of the "I" as the "I" It is the "de-embedded" most important self. Fordham allows us to understand that child development has physical, mental and emotional content, and that the self is actively engaged in the process of its own structure and training, as with the realization of their own potential in time, while simultaneously it adapts to what the environment offers both qualitatively and quantitatively in the form of "experience".
Fordham succeeded in integrating the fundamental concepts of Jung about the self and nature and prospective function of the psyche, with conceptions of psychic and somatic early development.

The archetypal school:

The "archetypal psychology" was created by James Hillman and a group of Jungian Zurich in the early 70s'. It born as a reaction to what these analysts considered in the Jungian theory as "unjustified metaphysical assumptions" and a "complacent and mechanical application of Jungian principles."

The archetypal school rejects the term "archetype" but retains the "archetypal" adjective. Hillman says untenable distinction between "archetypes" and "archetypal images", as holding that a psychic level is only possible to find images. Hillman's position is essentially phenomenological hermeneutics relativize reaching dimension in the work with imagination.
According to Hillman says, the "archetypal" is not a "category", but simply a consideration, one perspective that can be applied to any image. Hillman does not accept or proposes the metaphysical existence of archetypes prior to character images. For those who adhere to this line of thought, any image, including those that are considered trivial, may be referred to and accepted as "archetypal".

Hillman uses the term "revisionar" as a central concept of his practice, where "revisionar" the "deliteralizing" or "metaphorically" reality. It states that the purpose of the analysis is not to make the unconscious conscious, but a metaphor literal, transform reality into "imaginal" individuals can make sense and realize that "imagination is reality," and that every image has implications deeply metaphorical potential.

The term "imaginal psychology" is used synonymously with "archetypal psychology". For Hillman, the "imaginal" is as real as any external reality, which has its theoretical foundation in the fact that any phenomenon, whether belonging to the external or internal world, takes his "reality" only after its constitution and represent psychic level. This position is consistent with that adopted by Jung to practice active imagination. To imagine "actively", the individual should be able to see emerging psychic images as if they were autonomous and possess an equivalent to the external "reality" ontological dimension. Hillman used this method and applies to all images, not just those that arise and appear during the practice of the technique of active imagination. The fundamental premise of the imaginal psychology is "stick to the image", focus and work with the image from the image, leaving aside all the complex interpretations and hermeneutical implications about it.

For Freud, the image or representation is manifestly not what appears to be, but is the "visible" side of something that remains dormant. Instead, both Jung to Hillman, the picture is exactly what appears to be, and nothing more. To express the psyche selected a varied repertoire of images available that is particularly suitable for the purposes of a specific metaphoric purpose. In the practice of imaginal psychology, the technique involves the proliferation of images, strictly abide by this phenomenon, and specifying implicit descriptive and metaphorical qualities. The methodology achieves a progressive evocation of images, compromising the subject of careful attention to these phenomena as they arise, in order to achieve qualitative descriptions and further elaboration of the metaphorical implications.

Hillman also believes that one of the main objectives of the analysis is to achieve the relativization of self through imagination. Relativize the imagination allows me, descentrarlo, I can prove that, ultimately, is also an image, or even the most important, but only one among many others of equal importance.
We can say that Hillman is not a hermeneutic but a phenomenologist, which prioritizes the phenomenon adhering to the image, refusing to its interpretation or its reduction to mere category concept, which holds that all hermeneutics involves the unavoidable risk of reductionism. So, Hillman says about it: "If for Freud the elongated objects are penises, for dark objects are Jungian shadows." Clearly, any dogmatic adherence to the reduced space of a particular theory or epistemology, can not but lead to distortions that are characteristic of generalization and to denial of the various aspects of reality.

The imaginal psychology gives a special value to the particularity of the images on the generality of any concept. Each image has a dimension that presents the descriptive qualities are of such a degree of diversity that are potentially infinite, as they are their metaphorical potential. Hillman says that "images and fantasy are at the basic level of reality. These images are the primary activity of consciousness. The images are the only reality we apprehend directly."

Although we found differences between their respective approaches, there is a strong spirit of collaboration and integration between different posjunguianas schools, as well as the whole of them with respect to other theoretical and practical guidelines for other therapeutic currents. Perhaps the following sentence Hester Solomon is the clearest example to plot it. "It is indeed ironic that the great Freudian and Jungian traditions separated for historical reasons, personal and professional philosophies policies Considered as a whole, the movement of tradition Analytical as a whole, encompassing both psychoanalysis and analytical psychology could offer, despite the real differences that may exist, a broader and potentially more creative way for the emergence of enriching developments in the broad field of depth psychology in general and of the contents and processes of self in particular. "


Informes: (011) 4777 - 5130 ----- info@centrojung.com.ar
Copyright © 2016 Centro Jung de Buenos Aires