[Buddha-l] Jung and Dignaga

[Dan Lusthaus]

Katherine,

Sounds more like a denial than an apology. In fact, after the war, Jung
briefly was contrite toward some Jewish leaders (he's reported to have said
to Leo Baeck in 1946 something like: "I messed up, didn't I?"). But already
in 1945, in very paranoid and antisemitic terms, he was accusing the "Jewish
Freudians in America" and Vienna (though Vienna had been devoid of Jews
since 1940) of a global conspiracy to defame him as an antisemite,
protesting that "some of my best friends were Jews."

As should be clear by now, the Freudian and Jungian camps have been going at
it for a long time, to neither of their credits; and that a cottage industry
refurbishing Jung's reputation while deferring the onus of "inferiority"
back onto Freud and the Freudians has been ongoing for more than half a
century.

Let me recommend some more balanced, but important sources. One is Andrew
Samuels, a British Jungian analyst, who, in the 1990s, took up the question
of Jung, antisemitism and the Nazis in as close to an even-handed way as may
be possible.

#1. Andrew Samuels. "National Psychology, National Socialism, and Analytic
Psychology: Reflections of Jung and anti-semitism, Part II," Journal of
Analytical Psychology; Jan1992, Vol. 37 Issue 1, 3-28

#2. Andrew Samuels. "National Psychology, National Socialism, and Analytic
Psychology: Reflections of Jung and anti-semitism, Part II," Journal of
Analytical Psychology 1992, 37, 127-148
[see excerpts below]

#3. Andrew Samuels, "New Material Concerning Jung, Anti-semitism, and the
Nazis." Journal of Analytical Psychology 1993, 38, 463-470
[Discusses Jung's associations with Mathias Göring and Wilhelm Hauer, and a
letter to Mary Mellon, who went on to found the Bollingen Foundation,
written by Jung on Sept. 24, 1945, just at the end of the war, which speaks
for itself.]

#4. Georgia Lepper's review (in Journal of Analytical Psychology; Jul92,
Vol. 37 Issue 3, p363-364, 2p) of:
Samuels, A. (London). 'Jung and anti-Semitism'. Continuum, I, i, 1990, pp.
45-52.

[Excerpt]
In this article, Andrew Samuels traces Jung's anti-Semitism conceptually
rather than historically, and provides us with some shocking evidence of the
degree to which Jung's dealings with the Nazis were shadowed by his own
nationalist sentiments and convictions, which he psychologized in his
theories of national characteristics: for example, he claimed 'the Aryan
unconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish' (quoted in the article).

Refusing to be drawn into a debate which either justifies or castigates
Jung's activities, Samuels rather develops his theme: Nazi dogma was not
simply a vehicle for racism, but a political theory of history which was
rooted in the intense growth of nationalism, particularly in Germany. Jung's
nationalistic tendency, along with his 'pan-psychism', led him to believe in
a kind of innate national psychology, which was not in itself inherently
racist. Linking the logic of nationalism as expressed in these terms,
Samuels's analysis is that for Jung, the nationalist, the nationless Jews
were psychologically threatening similarly to the way they were experienced
as a threat to German nationalism, as expressed by Hitler through the Nazi
doctrine. Hence, Jung's 'Jewish psychology' referred not only to the
'typical'Jew, but also to the psychology developed by Jews, such as Freud
and Adler, which claimed universality and denied psychological differences,
including national differences. Such a psychology had levelling tendencies
which could be imposed upon all other ethnic and national psychologies.

Also see:
#5. Langwieler, G. "The reality of the shadow - Critical reflections on
Jung's attitude during the time of German national socialism (Nazism) and
toward analytical psychology," Analytische Psychologie, 1998 vol:29 iss:4
pg:272 -295

(From #1)
WAS JUNG ANTI-SEMITIC?
I have chosen to locate my own analysis on the inter-group level,which is
where the drama about Jung has been played out, a drama involving Christians
as well as Jews, Freudians, Jungians, and Nazis. This does not in itself
constitute a magic solution to the difficulties inherent in our themes. But
it does go some way to rectifying a serious problem with what has been
written about Jung to date. We have history (e.g. Jaffe 1971; Cocks 1985).
We have attack (e.g. Stem 1976; Haymond 1982).We have defence (e.g. Harms
1946; Kirsch 1982). We have at least half a dozen biographies of Jung. We
have the acrimonious correspondence that appeared in the New York Times in
1988. We have pleas for an imaginal approach (Giegerich 1979). [...] There
is simply very little critical work on the relationship of what is
problematic in Jung's writings to the general cultural problems of Nazism
and anti-semitism.
So, rather than attempt a new analysis of Jung the man (for which, not
having met him, I feel I have not the slightest evidential basis), I sought
a new use of what I had read. In this paper, I ask whether there is
something in the fundamental structure of Jung's thinking about the Jews, in
its heart or essence, that made anti-semitism inevitable. When Jung writes
about the Jews and Jewish psychology, is there something in his whole
attitude that brings him into the same frame as the Nazis, even if he were
shown not to have been an active Nazi collaborator? Is there something to
worry about?

My brief answer, in distinction to that of many well-known Jungians, is
'yes' and, as I said, my hope is that by exploring the matter as deeply as I
can a kind of reparation will ensue. Then there will be the base from which
to explore the full potential of what Jung was trying to do in his
psychological texts on culture in the 1930s.

(from #2)
The paper is a critical study of the intellectual relations of analytical
psychology and national socialism. I try to show that it was Jung's attempt
to establish a psychology of nations that brought him into the same frame as
Nazi anti-semitic ideology. In addition, Jung was absorbed by the question
of leadership, also a pressing issue during the 1930s. Exploring these ideas
as thoroughly as possible leads to a kind of reparation, for I think that
post-Jungians do have reparation to make. Then it is possible to revalue
Jung's overall project in more positive terms. By coupling a less simplistic
methodology and a more sensitive set of values to Jung's basic intuitions
about the importance of a psychology of cultural difference, analytical
psychology has something to offer a depth psychology that is concerned with
processes of political and social transformation.
---

As this is indeed straying far from Buddhist topics, I suggest this thread
now be closed. If anyone cares to discuss this further offline, fine.

Dan Lusthaus