While the figure of Sigmund Freud is important for understanding the origin of psychoanalysis, so is the figure of Carl Gustav Jung, a Swiss psychiatrist born in 1875, one of the most important psychoanalysts in the birth and constitution of psychoanalytic orientation. Today we will talk about the controversy between Freud and Jung.
Jung became interested in Freud’s work, however, at one point, his theoretical positions followed different paths, Carl Jung was expelled from the International Society of Psychoanalysis at the time, so the controversy between Freud and Jung is of great importance, especially for psychoanalysis. researchers and other intellectual historians.
- The controversy between the two psychoanalysts is a concrete fact in the constellation of actions that have shaped the psychoanalysis we know today (1) In this sky.
- The rhetorical and legitimizing strategies adopted by Freud and the psychoanalytic movement to institute.
- Perpetuate and control psychoanalysis Practice are of particular importance.
- In addition.
- Segregation and expulsion of dissidents was a central theme.
The strongest hypothesis about Freud’s tolerance to Jung’s acute and early differences highlights the Swiss psychiatrist’s strategic role in consolidating and dissezing the nascent psychoanalytic movement (2).
Apparently, the strategic importance of Jung and the Swiss for the survival of psychoanalysis had already been declared by Freud years earlier (2). Thus, in May 1908, Sigmund Freud confessed to Karl Abraham that “it was only because of Jung’s appearance that psychoanalysis escaped the danger of becoming a Jewish national affair. “
They say the most complex period of their personal relationship was around 1912. Freud, in a way, tried to disprove Jung’s theories, just as he did with Adler.
It was a clear start to the controversy among psychoanalysts. Disagreement with his theories, Freud emphasized that Jung’s contributions were useless. Here a clear controversy broke out between the two men that particularly affected psychoanalysis.
In the first letter in which Jung systematically sets out his views on the symbolic nature of incest taboo, Freud responds that he considers innovation to be regressive and overly Adlerian.
Before this, Jung responds with indignation for having sadly verified that intense emotional motives arise in you against my proposals (McGuire and Sauerlander, 2012).
In the same reply, dated June 8, 1912, Jung evokes his future conferences in America. When Freud responds, he tells Jung that his interpretations of incest taboo and libido are false.
Before that, Jung responded on July 18 in a negative tone, commenting with Freud that success or failure in relation to his negative judgment about innovation in the field of libido and incest would be established in it?Success or failure of my own work? (two).
Freud interprets the latter as a formal renunciation of our so-far friendly relations. I am sorry, not so much for personal reasons, but for the future of the Verein (association) and the cause of psychoanalysis (3).
Four years later, in 1916, Jung published his book of studies on symbolism and libido, a work that was not very well received by Freud and his companions, as expected.
Another event that marked the differences between the two were the conferences in America, which took place in September 1912. Jung gave a series of lectures at Fordham University, which were the subject of Freud’s objection.
He also set out, of course, my opinions, in different parts of the opinions held so far. I mean mainly the theory of libido. I observed that my conception of psychoanalysis has gained many friends, who until now doubted the problem of libido. sexuality in neurosis?. ? Freud, 11 November 1912?
However, Jung was quick to say that he hoped Freud would gradually accept his innovations, as they represented intellectual efforts that required objective judgment.
Jung argued that he did not identify Freud with dogma. As he would have mentioned in their own 1912 conferences in North America, the Swiss felt that their reformulations did not imply a division in the psychoanalytic movement, since such earthquakes can only exist in subjects But is psychoanalysis devoted to knowledge and its formulations constantly changing?(4)
Thus, Freud and his psychoanalysis colleagues, such as Ferenczi, began to speak ill of Jung. He was considered an “incomprehensible mystic, an occultist and a theopsicologist. “
In view of this and the subsequent devaluations of Jung’s work, it is manifested:
“A large proportion of psychoanalysts abuse psychoanalysis to devalue others and their progress through the usual suggestions of complexes. “
Formally speaking, Freud offered Jung a position as a contributor to the new magazine he intended to create. On December 3, 1912, Jung responded to this offer and let Freud’s fixation on neurosis escape. Faced with this, Freud ordered him to “take care” of his own neurosis more than that of his neighbor. “
Jung’s dissatisfaction with Freudian attitudes towards his innovations and those of other psychoanalysts is condensed into a phrase he addressed to Freud in a letter dated December 18, 1912:
When he completely gets rid of his complexes and no longer plays as the father of his children, whose weaknesses he constantly points out, and takes care of himself, then I will agree to eradicate my lost sin. unity with myself before you, once and for all??Jung, 18 December 1912.
Correspondence between the two professionals began to decrease thereafter, the controversy between Freud and Jung became clearer. In 1913 the Fourth International Congress of Psychoanalysis was held in Munich, in which the two psychiatrists participated.
Psychoanalytic historiography, with Freud at its foundations, highlighted Jung’s inappropriate and erratic behavior at this congress (2), however, other sources describe that the conference offered a different perspective.
Between October 1913 and April 1914, several psychoanalytic criticisms arose of Jung’s work, it was these criticisms and their violence that led to the resignation of the president of the IPA (International Association of Psychoanalysis) up to that point, Carl Jung.
The relationship between the two, as well as between the two and the psychoanalytic movement, was problematic, the personal and professional relationship began as a formal relationship, evolving towards Freud’s paternalistic tutelage, in the end, Jung’s distance became apparent.
Freud’s disappointment with Jung was marked by intense emotions, which can be clearly seen in the letters they exchanged, thus creating controversy between the two psychoanalysts we are talking about. However, it is possible to say that the relationship between these two men has been a great contribution to history (4).