Freud's psychoanalysis and Jung's analytical psychology

Psychoanalysis is the form of treatment of neuroses invented by Freud in the 1890s and elaborated since then by himself, his disciples and followers. Psychoanalytical technique consists essentially in instructing and helping the patient to associate freely, in interpreting both his associations and the obstacles he encounters in trying to associate, and in interpreting his feelings and attitudes towards the analyst. Forms of psychotherapy which use Freudian theory in combination with other techniques are, strictly speaking, psychoanalytically orientated psychotherapy and not psychoanalysis. The laity use the term in a much wider sense to include the theories and therapies of all psychotherapists who follow Freud and Jung, despite the fact that the Jungians call themselves analytical psychologists (Charles Rycroft, Critical Dictionary of Psychoanalysis, 1995, p. 143).

Freud was a scientist, who wrote with the clarity of a man of the Enlightenment period, in a style which was befitted. His aim was to make psychoanalysis a science. Jung on the other hand was the mystic, he wrote with all the struggle and passion of a Romantic and the reader is often obliged to suffer along with him. From the time they separated, the animosity between Jungians and Freudians was extreme. The difference between them is on the way in which each viewed and lived the world.

Psychoanalysis developed to a very great extent in and through the work of Freud as mentioned before. The first phase of psychoanalysis was when Freud assumed that many of the memories of traumatic experiences were not in fact memories of real events at all but rather accounts of fantasies. The first phase is based on the external events in contrast with the second phase in which Freud gave emphasis on the conscious wishes, promptings and drives (Sandler, 1979). The model of the mental apparatus (as a composite instrument, and endeavours to determine at what points in it the various mental processes take place) in the second phase, is known as the 'topographical' model.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

Freud saw Unconscious as a 'storehouse' for forgotten memories that may or may not be remembered again. He, however, extended the range of influence of the unconscious into every aspect of both our waking and sleeping lives (Power, 2000). The unconscious was basically sexual in nature. It was an emotional source, not place-related, not located in time. It contained instinctual drives and wishes which if they were to be allowed to emerge into consciousness, would cause a threat and increase anxiety or other unpleasant feelings (Sandler, 1979). Unconscious was a particular realm of the mind with its own wishful impulses, its own mode of expression and its peculiar mental mechanisms which were not in force elsewhere (Freud, 1973).

In the unconscious there was no language, as we normally understand the world and Symington (1986) gave an interesting metaphor: 'You need to think of the unconscious as a deaf and dumb person whose only method of communicating is by drawing pictures... All the features of this interesting world remain unconscious until meaning is attached to them through words; at that moment they become conscious'. The aim of psychoanalysis, in that point, was 'to make unconscious, conscious'. According to Freud, the stronger the trauma the better were the chances for cure. His basic concept was that psychoanalysis can be defined as a method which tries to uncover the unconscious reality of a person and which assumes that in this process of uncovering the person has a chance to get well (Fromm, 1994).

As far as we can see, Freud does not refer to consciousness very often, something which in my opinion underestimates the power of the human beings to control their behaviours and feelings in contrast to Jung, who believed that psyche was divided in conscious parts that are well organized and ego was the organizer of these parts and it is the centre of the consciousness (Fordham, 1986). In my way of understanding, consciousness is extremely important and the real struggle with ourselves is how our consciousness will finally let us feel less guilty, sad and depressed, but more satisfied from what we have achieved.

Jung's concept of the unconscious was far richer than Freud's. He referred to it as the collective unconscious and distinguished it from the personal unconscious stretch down into the collective unconscious (Symington, 1986). By understanding the unconscious we free ourselves from its domination. The fullness of the world which till now pressed upon it has lost none of its richness and beauty but it no longer dominates. Consciousness was no longer preoccupied with compulsive plans but dissolved in thoughtful vision (Jung, 1995).

Jung denied what Freud believed about the unconscious which was just a place for forgotten and suppressed contents and he assumed that there is the personal unconscious which seemed not to derive from personal experience and achievement but it was inborn (Jung, 1940). On the other hand, Jung is still attached to his Freudian roots. In fact, he might be seen as the logical extension of Freud's tendency to put the causes of things into the past.

Freud, in 1973, assumed that: 'Something which is derived from our conscious life and shares its characteristics combines with something else coming from the realm of the unconscious in order to construct a dream. The dream work is accomplished between these two components'. Dreaming is a structure made up mostly of visual or other sensory impressions, which represents to us a illusory picture of an experience and may be blended with mental processes (the knowledge in the dream) and emotional manifestations. The action of an unconscious wish upon the logical conscious material of dream-thoughts results in the dream. Nonsense and irrationality are proposed to express disillusioned criticism and disrespectful contradiction within the dream-thoughts. The dream is not a psychic phenomenon at all, but it is a way to understand the unconscious (Freud, 1916).

Jung also assumed that the unconscious can be represented in dreams, active fantasy and he extended Freud's theory about dreams with cultural forms as myths, fairy tales, magic and religion. He broadened interpretation, whether of symptoms or dreams or free-associations. While Freud developed more-or-less rigid (specifically, sexual) interpretations, Jung allowed for a rather free-wheeling "mythological" interpretation, wherein anything could mean anything. Although, we can notice that Freud, too, talked about myths -Oedipus complex, for example- and how they impact on the modern psyche.

For Freud, as well as for Jung, dreams were central to the analytical process. In contrast with Freud's method of free association, Jung's method required the patient to concentrate on the image or thought in question and to explore its inner possibilities by building up a series of closely linked images and symbolist involved. In his clinical practice Jung encouraged his patients to explore mythic, historical and cultural analogies and correspondences with their images or dreams, thereby embedding the latter in a symbolic way (Clarke, 1992).

In Freud's theory, people like all other animals, are guided by their instincts or drives and function under the need to getting satisfied. This general schematic picture of a psychical apparatus may be supposed to apply as well to the higher animals which resemble man mentally (Fenichel, 1941). People are lead by their erotic and aggressive instincts or drives. As Symington said (1986), in every drive there is the source and the aim is the satisfaction of the drive related with reduction of anxiety, subjectively experienced as pleasure; and the object, that through which the aim is achieved. This way of functioning opposes and comes into conflict with the way the society and the exterior world requires us to function (Lawrence A. Pervin - Oliver P. John 2001).

There are two basic drives: Eros and the destruction-drive. The aim of the first drive is to establish and maintain ever greater agreement, that is, binding; the aim of the second is, by contrast, to disband connections, and thus to destroy things. Because of this we also call it Death drive (Thanatos). These two basic drives work against one another. This way in which the two basic drives work, gives rise to the whole spectrum of life-phenomena (Freud, 1933?). If we are talking about creating (Eros) and destroying (Thanatos) drives, I assume that they act like motives. In my opinion, death drive can work effectively for people and not only to destroy things around them. Death instinct for me is the main motive of our lives, a. It has the power to give us meaning in our lives, a term which is absent from Freud's theory.

In order to obtain a better understanding of the two theories mentioned, a review of the background as well as the relationship between the two theorists will be examined.

They were both firstborns, singularly prized by the mother. Each one's need for a male identification figure was not satisfied by the image of the real or biological father. In Jung's case the father's Achilles heel was the acceptance dogma as a substitute for the search for truth. In Freud's case the father's defect was characterized by his failure to succeed, which Freud attributed partially to his father's lack of courage (Irving, 1982).

World War I was a painful period of self-examination for Freud as well for Jung. Freud's initial response to World War I was patriotic, and he closely followed the unfolding events of the war. But Freud grew disillusioned with the conflict, and the war seemed to have had a decisive effect on Freud's thinking. Death and violence became more prominent in his theories, and he emphasized the ways participation in mass society released deep-seated aggressive impulses. Social crises, he argued, allow us to see aspects of human nature normally hidden in everyday life.

For Jung, it was, however, also the beginning of one of the most interesting theories of personality the world has ever seen. After the war, Jung travelled widely, visiting tribal people in Africa, America, and India where he had great influences from the different cultures.

Their relationship between them started around 1907 when they first met. They were exchanging some letters and established a close and professional relationship which lasted until 1913 (Clarke, 1992).

When they first met, libido theory was born, papers on technique were produced, and long case histories were offered. Freud had already in 1902 begun to gather a circle of disciples who afforded him a continuous forum for his ideas. He was a man, entering the sixth decade of life, who was bursting forth with original views on the understanding of fundamental human problems. He was a well established figure while Jung was thirty years old and had been qualified as a medical practitioner for seven years.

During the time of their friendship Freud certainly never treated Jung as a pupil, seeing him rather as a respected and highly valued junior partner in his attempt to establish the professional credentials of psychoanalysis. Jung moved in a quite different direction and began to contrast a different view. When he read widely amongst philosophers especially German Romantic philosophers, his appreciation about Freud's ideas regarding sexuality, reduced. He insisted that Freud's psychoanalysis is only one of the several possible therapies.

Jung was using the principles and methods of psychoanalysis which he learned from Freud. At the same time, he developed a systematic non-method, an attitude of adaptability, open mindedness and ability to react. He admonished therapists to divest themselves of theoretical preconceptions whilst treating patients (Fordham, 1986). Jung rejected Freud's theory upon evidence and he insisted that the therapist should see the patient as an individual case rather than in attempting to apply general theories indiscriminately. According to Freud, the analyst must possess some kind of superiority so he can act as a model for his patient (Fromm, 1994) but Jung' s aim was to make his patients become active participants in his treatments so they can do their own self-analysis or dream-analysis and to digest what he gave them. Their paths are becoming converged, when both of them assumed that the most vital in the analytic relationship is the love of truth.

Jung was very impressed with Freud's original libido theory, which he struggled to bring in line with his own intuition of the psyche as profoundly inspirited. He took the leap from a strictly sexual formulation of libido toward a more general view of "psychic energy." This reorientation to the energetic meaning of the contents of the psyche soon transformed everything he had been learning from Freud, because he quickly noted that certain symbols were not just symbols of repressed libido in Freud's sense (Beebe John & Cambray, Joseph & Kirsch, Thomas B., 2001).

Jung pointed out that his theory was not very different in regards to the principles from Freud's, since Freud believed that we received an instinctive deposit that is shared by all men. Where there is a difference is that Jung believed that the instinctive deposit is shaped into a variety of symbolic images. Even here, though the difference from Freud is not so great since Freud said that we know our drives through their representatives (Symington, 1986, p.220).

By 1917, the psyche was conceived by Jung as the play of the complexes. The contents of the collective unconscious are called archetypes. An archetype is an unlearned tendency to experience things in a certain way. The archetype has no form of its own, but it acts as an "organizing principle" on the things we see or do. It works the way that instincts work in Freud's theory: At first, the baby just wants something to eat, without knowing what it wants. It has a rather indefinite yearning which, nevertheless, can be satisfied by some things and not by others. Later, with experience, the child begins to yearn for something more specific when it is hungry. The archetype is like a black hole in space: You only know that it is there by how it draws matter and light to itself.

Jung stressed that our imagination, perception and thinking are influenced by inborn, universally present formal elements, or archetypes, while Freud stressed the repression of the personal wishes and desires. The archetypes, he insisted are not inherited ideas but inherited possibilities; the actual contents of consciousness are all acquired individually (Clarke, 1992, p. 123).

'These archetypes are no longer contents of the unconscious, But have already changed into conscious formulas that are taught according to tradition, generally in the form of esoteric teaching'(Jung. 1940, p. 53). Here we can see again the attention that Jung paid to the consciousness, in contrast to Freud who assumed that we are all driven by our instincts, which is an unconscious procedure.

For Jung the ego itself in contrast to Freud's ego is relativized by the fact that the psyche is naturally structured into complexes, each with its own archetypal image at the core. He saw the ego as the complex at the centre of one's personal awareness of having a more or less stable identity of perspective, that is, an "I"-ness. As a threat to the ego, a complex arouses a host of defensive manoeuvres to keep it from "taking over." (Beebe John & Cambray, Joseph & Kirsch, Thomas B., 2001). Although the complexes derive primarily from the personal unconscious, they stretched down into the collective unconscious wherefrom they drew their power (Symington, 1986, p.220). What Jung meant by complex regarding his conception of ego, is somewhat different from Freud's notion of ego as one of the psychic agencies, along with the id and superego. In Jungian practice as in Freudian, strongly pathogenic complexes are frequently traced to emotionally traumatic experiences that result in dissociative splits in the psyche, weakening the authority and mastery of the ego. One of Jung's most helpful contributions to effective psychotherapy was to insist that complexes form a normal part of psychological functioning. This point had also been recognized by Freud, who actually attributed the opposite point of view to the Jungians.

The Self is sometimes classed as an archetype. At every stage of ego development, the archetype of the Self is met in a different aspect appropriate to that stage of life. The Self is the centre but also the perimeter that encloses consciousness and the unconscious and the ego is the centre of consciousness (Jung, 1940).

In Jung's sense, individuation means finding one's own way on the basis of the Self, not the ego. In Freud's theory the aim is to strengthen the ego, but in Jung the aim is to find yourself through individuation. Individuation is a lifelong developmental process and it includes transformation from a state where the person is controlled by the collective unconscious, to one where the attachment is loosened (Symington, p.223). Central to Jung's psychology of religion is his concept of individuation.

The individuation process was the lens through Jung viewed all religious experience (Aziz, 1990). Jung was one of the first psychotherapists to suggest that psychology and especially psychotherapy, might replace religion by offering a new system of meaning. (Brian Thorne & Elke Lambers, 1998, p. 11). His claim was that he did not believe that God existed; knew God existed (Jung, 1961, p. 62, cited in Beebe John & Cambray, Joseph & Kirsch, Thomas B.. 2001).

The break between Freud and Jung happened in 1913 when Jung theoretically rejected Freud libido theory.

They are many assumptions about their splitting. The one I found more interesting is the following: Irving Alexander's position (1982) about their split is that it was inevitable the result of incompatible overlapping features in their personalities aided and abetted by life role differences between them. The route of theory points to their differing views on the nature of libido, or to the importance of sexuality in the aetiology of the neuroses. The route of personality dynamics usually leads to Jung's ambition or Freud's need to maintain authority and control. Freud assumed the role of father toward his followers he should have feared displacement death by the sons.

If the theory was based on the Oedipus complex, then I believe that Freud is represented as the paternal figure and Jung as the son. We can see this clearly in one confession Freud made about Jung that he formally adopted him (Jung) as his eldest son. (McGuire, 1974, p. 218 cited in Beebe John & Cambray, Joseph & Kirsch, Thomas B.. 2001). My hypothesis is that Jung wanted to kill his father (in this case Freud, or Freud's ideas).

Freud established himself as the founder of psychoanalysis and claimed ownership, like the father of Psychoanalysis. Jung was motivated by his own need to rid himself of his father's ideas that he projected onto Freud as pioneer of psychoanalysis. This determination manifested itself in his revolutionising of Freud. Because of his father, he wanted to achieve the fatherhood as he had it in his mind successfully. He expanded Freud's theory with myths, astrology, religion as a reaction to what his father had told him; not to question but to believe.

It could be concluded from the previous analysis that Jung and Freud parted ways because of inherent differences in their parental relationships that adversely affected their paradigms rendering them or their work incompatible.

Jung has an important place in the intellectual debates of our time and deserves to be rescued from the shadow of Freud. I think that Jung has a lot in common with the neo-Freudians, humanists, and existentialists. He believes that we are meant to progress, to move in a positive direction, and not just to adapt, as the Freudians and behaviourists would have it.

Examining Freud's work I get the sense that the overall themes of the work are not clearly stated. Like Freud, Jung tries to bring everything into his system. He has little room for chance, accident, or circumstances. Personality and life in general seems "over-explained" in Jung's theory and he never organized his interesting ideas.

REFERENCES

• Fordham, Michael. 1978, 1986. Jungian Psychotherapy - A study in Analytical Psychology. Great Britain: Wheaton & Co. Ltd., Exeter.
• Aziz, Robert. 1990. C. G. Jung's Psychology of Religion and Synchronicity. United States of America: State University of New York Press, Albany.
• Jung, Carl G., MD. 1940. The Integration of the Personality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
• Thorne, Brian & Elke Lambers. 1998. Person-Centred therapy, a European perspective.
• Beebe John & Cambray, Joseph & Kirsch, Thomas B.. 2001. What Freudians can learn from Jung. Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol 18(2), pp. 213-242.
• Clarke, J. J. 1992. In search of Jung: Historical and philosophical enquiries. London: Routledge.
• Jung, C. G.. 1995. Jung on the East. London: Routledge.
• Fenichel, O. (1941). An Outline of Psychoanalysis: Sigmund Freud. Int. J. Psa., XXI, 1940, p. 1.. Psychoanal Q., 10:169-173
• Lawrence A. Pervin & Oliver P. John. 2001. Theories of Personality.
• Sandler, J. 1979. The patient and the analyst.
• Symington, Neville. 1986. The analytic experience- Lectures from the Tavistock. Great Britain, London: Free Association Books Ltd.
• Fromm, Erich. 1994. The art of listening. Great Britain, London: Constable & Company Ltd.
• Rycroft, Charles. 1968, 1995. Critical Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. Penguin Books.
• Freud, Sigmund. 1916. Wit and its relation to the unconscious. New York: Moffat, Yard and Company.
• Freud, Sigmund. 1933?. An outline of Psychoanalysis. Penguin Books.
• Freud, Sigmund. 1973, 1991. 1. Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. England: Clays Ltd, St Ives plc.
• Irving, Alexander. 1982. The Freud- Jung relationship- The other side of Oedipus and Countertranference, Some implications for psychoanalytic theory and psychotherapy. American Psychologist Vol. 37(9), Sep, 1982. pp. 1009-1018. US: American Psychological Association
• http://scholar.google.co.uk: Power, Mike. Dec. 2000. Freud and the Uncoscious. The Psychologist Vol 13 No 12.