In his article Misunderstanding Jung: the afterlife of legends, Sonu Shamdasani wrote¹:
C. G. Jung has almost become completely fictional. When Frank McLynn’s biography appeared in 1996, I had thought that the bottom had finally been reached. So I titled my review of it, ‘Why are Jung biographies so bad?’ (Shamdasani 1996b). In the April 2000 issue of the Journal of Analytical Psychology (also featured on its website) F. X. Charet declares:McLynn’s literary style and mastery of the sources makes this biography stand out as the most readable and thorough that has been published to date. His judgements are often astute and perceptive … (p. 203)
No examples or evidence of this are given. What is worse is that such statements evidently evaded questioning and red ink by the editors of this journal and the experts on Jung history that one assumes reviewed it before publication.
Clearly, the bottom had not been reached. Jung history, as I have argued, has become increasingly dominated by ‘History Lite’, or evidence free history (Shamdasani 1999b & forthcoming).
I agree with Shamdasani. The peer-review system in the field of Analytical psychology is and has been broken for a long time. Jungians commentators rarely show that they have integrated their projections in regards to Jung which is a really sad thing when those commentator are Jungian analysts. We observe too frequently that many of them are still lost in what I have termed the "magical and wonderful world of the Jungian mystique" where Carl Jung is no longer a man and a physician but a demi-god. Both the Journal of Analytical psychology and the Jung Journal have lost touch with what a scientific journal is. They promote interpretations that are devoided of rigorous scientific principles of verification in order to fuel the participation mystique of their readers. I have already made this observation regarding articles or books from Murray Stein, Wolfgang Giegerich, Stanton Marlan, Daniela Bocassini and a few others. Thus, both journals look more as high school newspapers than scientific reviews.
But the worst is that Sonu Shamdasani himself is not immune to this disease. In the introduction of The Red Book, he wrote:
In Scrutinies, he (Jung) wrote that the outbreak of the war had enabled him to understand much of what he had previously experienced, and had given him the courage to write the earlier part of Liber Novus. Thus he took the outbreak of the war as showing him that his fear of going mad was misplaced. It is no exaggeration to say that had war not been declared, Liber Novus would in all likelihood not have been compiled. (...)
It is important to note that there are around twelve separate fantasies that Jung may have regarded as precognitive (my emphasis):
1–2. OCTOBER, 1913Repeated vision of flood and death of thousands, and the voice that said that this will become real.3. AUTUMN 1913Vision of the sea of blood covering the northern lands.4–5. DECEMBER 12, 15, 1913Image of a dead hero and the slaying of Siegfried in a dream.6. DECEMBER 25, 1913Image of the foot of a giant stepping on a city, and images of murder and bloody cruelty.7. JANUARY 2, 1914Image of a sea of blood and a procession of dead multitudes.8. JANUARY 22, 1914His soul comes up from the depths and asks him if he will accept war and destruction. She shows him images of destruction, military weapons, human remains, sunken ships, destroyed states, etc.9. MAY 21, 1914A voice says that the sacrificed fall left and right.10–12. JUNE–JULY 1914Thrice-repeated dream of being in a foreign land and having to return quickly by ship, and the descent of the icy cold.
Shamdasani made here an editorial choice that also responds to the magical and wonderful world of Jungian mystique or his own History Lite observation. Two questions need to be raised:
Why does he fall for the need to underscore the precognitive tangent?
Why having recourse to a concept at the fringe of science when those "visions" are all signs of a depression?
In the quote from The Red Book, Shamdasani used the same technique of manipulation of events he denounced in other historians' works. He was taken by the Enchanted World of Jungian mystique. Unconsciously, we hope, he felt for the promotion of "precognition" instead of a more rational explanation.
Those twelve dreams bear all the signs of depression:
- The floadings, being under water
- Sea of blood as lost of energy
- Dead and murder of the hero
- Being under the foot of a giant
- War and destruction
- Being in a foreign land
Under a rational analysis, those dreams all aim toward the depiction of a depressive state. To Jungians, the D-word is never pronounced, it does not exist. It is a creative illness, a confrontation with the unconscious. The demi-god could not have been sick. Saying otherwise is bordering on heresy. Unfortunately, that is why Jungians are still lost in their enchanted world, unable to face reality.
Shamdasani made an editorial choice to stick with the Jungian mystique. He could have written the same thing about what Jung may have regarded as precognitive and having added the precision that it could also have meant something else more empirical but he chose not to do so. Thus, he bent the historical facts to please his readership, the residents of the Enchanted World of Jungian mystique. Sadly, he followed the same History Lite principle he denounced in others.
It is certainly very difficult to adopt a logical and realistic perception when studying Jung. One must always be on guard for the interference of the Jungian myths that have been elaborated by generations of worshippers of the demi-god. Even Shamdasani, an historian and not a Jungian analyst, was taken by it.
When reading the most prominent Jungian commentators, we cannot elude the realisation that Jung has become completely fictional to most analysts as Shamdasani wrote. They are still not showing any sign that they might exit the enchanted world of Jungian mystique. When we see what is published on Jung and Jungian psychology, we cannot but be stunned by the observation that the bottom has not been reached yet because the Jungian analysts are still digging the ground looking for the Enchanted World.
¹Misunderstanding Jung: the afterlife of legends, Sonu Shamdasani, Journal of Analtical Psychology, 2000, 45, 459–472