Gender and Soul in Psychotherapy (Chiron Clinical Series) [Paperback]

Nathan Schwartz-Salant (Author), Murray Stein (Editor)

Product Details

• Paperback: 295 pages
• Publisher: Chiron Pubns (December 1991)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0933029519
• ISBN-13: 978-0933029514
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,510,155 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Spectrum of views of Jung's anima/animus, June 11, 2006

By 

Neal J. Pollock (VA USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Gender and Soul in Psychotherapy (Chiron Clinical Series) (Paperback)

These 12 essays + 6 book reviews interpret Jung's anima/animus (a/a). Several have valuable multi-generational or courageously self-revealing case studies, & speak to psychodrama, movies, literature, poetry, & group dynamics. The 18 authors present a wide spectrum--classical to post Jungian (Zinkin compares 6 views)--with a distinct dichotomy: from maintaining contra-sexual distinctiveness (men have anima & women have animus) to claiming everyone has both. Some address a/a as archetype; some as complex--very few address both, though Jung implies this. The book as an entity has balance, but few essays are balanced/impartial/scientific vs. value judgments. Some stress a/a genderless aspects (bridge to Self); to others, this is Jung's inconsistency. I think Jung says successful individuation progresses the a/a from gendered to genderless like Kabbalah polarities disappearing in the top sefiroth Keter & the ultimate/Ein Sof, Tibetan male/female deities/yidams in the Dzogchen/Mahamudra Ground of Being/Nature of Mind, & Hindu trinity into genderless Brahman. Tresan relates anima to Kabbalist Shekinah & Buddhist Middle Way/Path. Strangely, Nathan Katz (author of "Dakini & Anima" in Meckel & Moore's "Self & Liberation: The Jung--Buddhist Dialogue" & "Buddhist and Western Psychology") is not represented in this book. Unfortunately, neither is Robert Moore--male archetype expert.

Those espousing a unisex anime vs. a/a support Hillman's book "Anima" with unconvincing nurture vs. nature/politically correct arguments & unscientific assumptions of Jung's gender bias IMHO; Jung had non-random empirical data--mostly mid 20th century Swiss patients--not representative of 21st century U.S. But, the same argument applies today--is contemporary U.S. society representative of humanity in either time or space? This is the same bias as Jung's day. As a scientist, Jung strove for impartiality. Jungian non-scientists' understanding of Jung is skewed, & implies progress is binary/linear--hardly anything is--rather than cyclic/helical/spiral. Some authors do seek impartiality & some argue gender differences are due to nature & nurture--some men have "female" brains & vice versa (biologically shown--but I'd guess it's men with Feeler brains & women with Thinker brains), not to mention powerful hormonal differences

IMHO much stereotypically considered gender just reflect the high correlation (almost 2/3) of men & Thinking vs. women & Feeling. A factor analysis/Analysis of Variance could separate these as well as social/cultural/nurture factors, leaving gender-specific differences. Set theory (Boolean Algebra, Venn Diagrams, Truth Tables) could reveal the relationships among these factors. Similarly, Jung's dichotomies of a/a vs. logos/eros, male/female, & soul/spirit could be separated. I doubt many authors understand Jung's meaning; IMHO they take the prince of symbols too literally--it's impossible for me to believe he meant that only men have souls & only women have spirit. Why not just drop the religious terms & just retain a/a? Zinkin quotes Jung p. 133 "Now the adept is conscious of himself as a man, consequently his masculinity cannot be projected, since this only happens to unconscious contents (CW16: 129-340, para. 421)," precluding men having animus/women having anima. The problem today may lie in analysts' viewing a/a as complex OR as archetype--not BOTH. Stein describes the additional dichotomy between a/a & persona such that children are strongly affected by one-parent families, precluding proper parallel development of persona & a/a: p. 240: "The persona complexes are usually structured in & through the intersection between the subject's personality & the same-sex parent...In parallel, the anima/animus functional complexes are formed & structured typically through the interaction between the subject's personality & the other-sex parent". Also, per General Systems Theory, Jung postulated that appropriately integrating/attuning with one's OPPOSITES enhances/facilitates individuation (growth)--i.e. re-integration of repressed Shadow contents, development of one's inferior function (Thinking, Feeling, iNtuitive, or Sensate), & relating to one's contra-sexual (anima OR animus). It also accords with Meyer's Law: "In all emotional conflicts the thing you find the hardest to do is the thing you should do" (John D. MacDonald "Pale Gray for Guilt" p.83). Finally, per Zinkin, p. 114: "Theories are like buildings: only certain bricks can be removed without the whole edifice collapsing." While I certainly wouldn't sanctify Jung's teachings, I don't think the post-Jungians have created a viable new paradigm.