Jung recognizes dreams, in relation to the client. He literally disagrees with his colleague Freud on this point, believing that dreams are very real to the client. To aid in dream analysis, the therapist must take the position that no matter how bizarre or crazy the dream may seem, it is the client’s reality. The therapist must enter the dream world in therapy as a believer, or something of that nature.
Here are two lines of succession in psychology, for those who like patristic successions. I also mean those who have a general curiosity about the origins of psychology and the main players. I have already taken comprehensive national exams years ago in counseling and marriage and family.
I would like to trace the two lines back to Vienna. This is where Freud and Jung meet for the first time. These two are very interested in each other’s work. They are part of the dream team of their generation. There are pictures of them among other psychology pioneers of their time, mostly from Europe.
Sigmund Freud studies from an individualistic analytical perspective in some respects.
Carl Jung studied individuals, but also became a master of sociological research.
Both conduct case studies, considered empirical research for their time. Large-scale psychological studies did not appear until the middle of the 20th century.
Freud vs. Jung on spiritual interaction between people
Neither denies a spiritual or pseudo-spiritual interaction between persons, or peoples. Frued’s list of defense mechanisms is just one example of how he recognizes these types of interactions. Real psychoanalysts still do it today. Usually a psychodynamic therapist, in the modern Freudian school of therapy, recognizes if there is something between the client and the therapist. It should be treated as a reality, something to work on for a while.
Jung begins to recognize cross-cultural symbolism, an area in which Freud does not delve so much. His belief is that there are similar themes, perhaps narratives, in cultures around the world. Freud recognizes the relationship between client and therapist. Jung recognizes the relationship between cultures through the earliest forms of case studies and the meta-analysis he conducts.
When it comes to the influence of a spiritual state of mind, they are similar, but different.
Freud versus Jung on the analysis of dreams
They both have interesting insights into dream analysis. Freud indeed analyzes dreams. However, he does not necessarily view them as a form of reality, as he does interrelationships and other aspects of his theory.
On the other hand, Jung recognizes dreams, in relation to the client. He literally disagrees with his colleague Freud on this point, believing that dreams are very real to the client. To aid in dream analysis, the therapist must take the position that no matter how bizarre or crazy the dream may seem, it is the client’s reality. The therapist must enter the dream world in therapy as a believer, or something of that nature. Recurring dreams are only worked on in this way.
They’re not unlocked like the client is obsessed with the dream, or anything. Fixation would be a developmental problem in Freud’s theory, which is widely debated anyway. Therefore, the dream, not recognized as something numinous by Freud, is venerated by Jung, who conducted a global cultural anthropology.
The school of Freud against the school of Jung
There are no real schools yet. Erik Erikson is a protege directly influenced by their work, particularly their work on developmental psychology of course. He may not be indebted to one or the other. For those unaware, Erikson’s developmental theory sets the stage for the educational model, especially in America. It adds adult stages of development later. James Marcia complements Erickson’s theory, for what we now call adolescence/young adulthood.
Keep in mind that the sexualized language of Freud’s developmental theory, Jung’s deep dives into cultural development and symbolism, Erikson’s dry, dry developmental theory, and Marcia’s seemingly dark title of supplementary theory; are all ways of seeing the linguistics of these pioneers with hindsight. However, their language and their social scientific explorations are all apropos for their time.
So far, it all sounds like a European thesis. A thesis does not have to be an original idea, but an advancement of work in a field.
Nevertheless, Freud and Jung end up separating. These are rumors from the academy. They separate themselves from the question of spirituality, something that Jung seems to be a little further down the road – eventually to the point of becoming a Christian. It is possible that Freud also had a spiritual heritage from a different religious tribe.
Freud | Jung | Erickson | Kohlberg | Hunter
Of course, Freud is becoming popular in certain circles. However, in real time, Jung is searched on the Internet worldwide with a higher degree of frequency. Both have their errors, if one tries to achieve strict biblical/theological integration. Neither claims to develop theology proper, any more than Erikson or Marcia.
Erik Erikson may look like Justin Martyr in a way. On his way to Rome, knowing that he would most likely be martyred, he wrote letters. However, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church love him. He is Western, but he speaks Greek. Erikson brings Vienna’s theories to American soil in a new way (not to be martyred of course) but to breathe new life into our psychological and educational systems.
Beyond Freud | Jung | Erikson then, the natural successor would be Lawrence Kohlberg. Lawrence does not have a strict theory of development like Erikson. Lawrence’s theory uses a similar developmental framework. He reaches the arena of moral development, the first theorist to do so looking back from our vantage point.
Freud offers allusions to morality in his theory of development. Jung definitely offers moral development, especially if you look at his work on the narrative archetypes that cultures develop (ideas that often resurface around the world).
Erikson’s theory of development also has to do with interrelationships. Those derived from Lawrence work on moral development: individuals, interrelationships, but also community development.
Lawrence studies with Erikson, but Erikson studied with Freud. Therefore, Lawrence was influenced by the dream team, including Jung.
James Fowler writes extensively, influences at least one global movement, and develops a community impacting at least half of a well-known metropolis.
You might possibly find his writings alongside those descended from the Jungian camp, if you know where to look. He studies with Lawrence.
One of Fowler’s contributions is to take the development model and add stages of faith. This has been recognized around the world. Religions or disciplines indeed develop in a similar way, sometimes. Those who think Fowler is going too far in applying his theory to non-Christians as well should start with the book:
Becoming an adult, becoming a Christian: adult development and Christian faith
What about the Jungian school?
Jung goes to school, writes a lot, sees clients, and basically owns a retreat center in a castle near a body of water. He influences countless influencers who are drawn to his social science research, as well as those drawn to his groundbreaking current and historical anthropologies. His works have now become something like theological apologetics for his students in at least two disciplines.
It influenced post-graduate education at least in Canada, where there is no separation of church and state, and at least one ivy league school on the coast. Additionally, some in the film world use his understanding of world cultures and narratives to develop entertainment today. If you examine his work, it is certainly not theology per se. It says some things that scholars disagree on, but there is a lot of disagreement among theologians on the classical readings. He leaves a lot of room for the mysterious and the numinous, however Carl Jung will surprise you.