Analytical Psychology in Exile

The Correspondence of C. G. Jung and Erich Neumann

C. G. Jung, Erich Neumann, Martin Liebscher, Heather McCartney

• Editorial: Princeton University Press
• Año: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781400865918
• Categoría: Psychologie
• Categoría: Jungianische Psychologie

Two giants of twentieth-century psychology in dialogue C. G. Jung and Erich Neumann first met in 1933, at a seminar Jung was conducting in Berlin. Jung was fifty-seven years old and internationally acclaimed for his own brand of psychotherapy. Neumann, twenty-eight, had just finished his studies in medicine. The two men struck up a correspondence that would continue until Neumann's death in 1960. A lifelong Zionist, Neumann fled Nazi Germany with his family and settled in Palestine in 1934, where he would become the founding father of analytical psychology in the future state of Israel.Presented here in English for the first time are letters that provide a rare look at the development of Jung's psychological theories from the 1930s onward as well as the emerging self-confidence of another towering twentieth-century intellectual who was often described as Jung's most talented student. Neumann was one of the few correspondence partners of Jung's who was able to challenge him intellectually and personally. These letters shed light on not only Jung's political attitude toward Nazi Germany, his alleged anti-Semitism, and his psychological theory of fascism, but also his understanding of Jewish psychology and mysticism. They affirm Neumann's importance as a leading psychologist of his time and paint a fascinating picture of the psychological impact of immigration on the German Jewish intellectuals who settled in Palestine and helped to create the state of Israel.Featuring Martin Liebscher's authoritative introduction and annotations, this volume documents one of the most important intellectual relationships in the history of analytical psychology.

1 J

[Küsnacht, Zurich,] 11 September 1933

Dr. Erich Neumann,
Weimarischestrasse 17,
Berlin-Wilmersdorf¹⁴¹

Dear Doctor,

I have reserved an hour’s appointment for you on Tuesday, 3rd October at 4 pm.

Yours respectfully,
C. G. Jung

¹⁴¹ From 1928 to 1932 Erich and Julie Neumann lived in Hindenburgstraße 86 (Berlin Wilmersdorf; today’s name: Am Volkspark). In 1932 they moved to Weimarische Straße 17 where they stayed until they left Germany in autumn 1933. (Information from Micha Neumann and Rali Loewenthal-Neumann.)

2 J

CERTIFICATE¹⁴²

I hereby confirm that Dr. Erich Neumann is engaged in psychological studies with me, and that my work will begin again on 15th January 1934.

Küsnacht, Zurich, 14th December
[C. G. Jung]

¹⁴² Presumably written for the Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police in order for Neumann to obtain a temporary permit of residency.

3 J

29. I. 1934

To: Dr. Erich Neumann,
Zurich

Dear Colleague,

It is possible that a Dr. Ernst Harms¹⁴³ will make contact with you. He is desperate for therapy, and needs it too—as he basically consists of an intellectual halo wandering lonely and footless through the world. He would not be uninteresting, but there would be no money in it.

With best wishes,
Yours truly,
[C. G. Jung]

¹⁴³ Ernest [Ernst] Harms (1895–1974): Jewish child psychotherapist. Studied with Freud and later with Jung; defended Jung against accusations of anti-Semitism (Harms, 1946). In 1934 he had already published articles on topics such as psychology of religion (Harms, 1931), pedagogy of psychology (Harms, 1931a), and German idealism (Harms, 1933a). Later works include Psychologie und Psychiatrie der Conversion (Psychology and Psychiatry of Conversion) (1939) and Origins of Modern Psychiatry (1967).

4 N

[no date]¹⁴⁴

Dear Dr. Jung,

When I spoke—in some dismay—with Miss Wolff¹⁴⁵ today about the partial validity of Dr. Bally’s¹⁴⁶ article and she gave me your paper “The State of Psychotherapy Today,”¹⁴⁷ I could not have imagined what a controversy of such fateful personal significance was about to unfold! I know I don’t have to tell you what you mean to me, and how hard it is for me to disagree with you, but I feel I simply must take issue with you on a matter that goes far beyond any merely personal concerns. I will refrain from commenting on whether the reverberations that your words are bound to have were indeed what you intended, and I will be silent about whether it is truly a Goethe-inspired perspective¹⁴⁸ to view the emergence of National Socialism in all its human-lashing, bloodthirsty barbarianism as a “mighty presence”¹⁴⁹ in the Germanic unconscious. I will also ignore the fact that I am perplexed that—though you cited in your lecture “the more obscure reference” to the ecstatic “Allah il Allah”¹⁵⁰ wail and that you spoke out against the idea of the “Führer as idol,”—here you are asserting that “a movement that takes hold of an entire nation, already has each and every individual in its grip.”¹⁵¹ As a Jew, I do not feel I have any licence to intervene in a controversy that no German can avoid today when they encounter this Germanic unconscious, but as it is certainly correct that we Jews are accustomed to recog nizing the shadow-side,¹⁵² then I cannot comprehend why a person like you cannot see what is all too cruelly obvious to everyone these days—that it is also in the Germanic psyche (and in the Slavic one) that a mind-numbing cloud¹⁵³ of filth, blood and rottenness is brewing.

It may well be that the immemorial history of my people with its long recurrence of prophets, judges, Zaddikim¹⁵⁴ and elders fills me with implausible and completely ungermanic ideas (ungermanic for sure), but, where I come from, great men have always been called upon to exercise discernment and to stand against the crowd—and it is precisely my conviction about the uniqueness of your own nature that causes me now—(not only in my own interest)—to ask you if this easy affirmation, this throwing yourself into the frenzy of Germanic exuberance—is this your true position or do I misunderstand you on this point?

More importantly though, I would wish to disabuse you of the conviction that Jews are as you imagine them to be. I do not know the Jews you have treated, but I know you consider even my friend Gerhard Adler¹⁵⁵ to be exceptionally Jewish. I believe myself to be completely certain of his agreement when I say to you that, even among our own people, things are not so unfortunate as for either of us to be considered typical representatives.

The rather sad Jewish remnants that have wound their way to you are those that remain, the most diasporic, assimilated and nationalized Jews, individuals and stragglers, but from where, dear Dr. Jung, do you know the Jewish race, the Jewish people? May your error of judgment perhaps be conditioned (in part) by the general ignorance of things Jewish and the secret and medieval abhorrence of them that thus leads to knowing everything about the India of 2000 years ago and nothing about the Hasidism¹⁵⁶ of 150 years ago? Furthermore, is there not the remnant of a misunderstanding in a sentence such as: “The Aryan unconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish (one)”¹⁵⁷ which allows a primitive race to claim that ‘they are the ones who are.”¹⁵⁸ The Hasidism movement as well as that of Zionism¹⁵⁹ demonstrate the inexhaustible liveliness of the Jewish people, as only a deficient interest can overlook the outrageousness of a phenomenon such as, for example, the renaissance of the Hebrew¹⁶⁰ language that was dead for 2,000 years and the settlement in Palestine that you, albeit tentatively and skeptically, consider to be romantic, while, as a Germanic person, you seem to wish to have a monopoly on all romanticism and illusion and value them highly. Of course I have to laugh at this exaggerated formulation, but there is much truth in what I am saying. This Jewish renaissance seems to me to be more embryonic, youthful and full of energy than the Nazi-rigid, brutally organized and stolid, extreme submissiveness of the Aryan revivals.¹⁶¹ Believe me, as a Jew, I quite love the Germanic potential as far as I am able to see it and get a sense of it, but to equate National Socialism with the Aryan-Germanic is perhaps ominously incorrect and I cannot understand how you reach this conclusion and whether you must reach it. Is Bolshevism also a feature of the Aryan unconscious? Or what does it imply that there, as you told me, all bad instincts have been called upon—which is apparently completely different in Germany.

I believe, even, that in both there are seeds of things to come, but I believe and know I have learned from you, and had it confirmed by you, that the most precious secret of every human being—not only of the Germanic race—is, in essence, the purely creative prescient depths of one’s soul. Far beyond the fact that your Jewish diagnosis is not right, I simply cannot see that it is possible that the collective unconscious, in its deeper layers, can have greater or fewer tensions within it among the different races. It seems to me that, as is the case for the individual, it is contingent on the consciousness of the race that changes through history and that, expressly in the case of the Jewish people, has changed repeatedly and will change again, and this engenders new developments over and over again. I fear you are confusing Freud—whom you have classified sociologically as European¹⁶² by the way—with the Jew, and therefore the use of Nazi terminology—simply to identify Freud’s categories as “Jewish categories”¹⁶³—is doubly puzzling coming from your pen, especially when previously—before the rise of Hitler—Freud’s extraverted theory was contrasted with Adler’s introverted theory.¹⁶⁴

I do not wish to change anything in this letter. It will remain as it is written. Hopefully you will appreciate how it is intended. It seems to me that it is precisely my gratitude toward you that obliges me to be candid. I hope there is not too much “Mars”¹⁶⁵ in this, but that there is some “Mars” here, I know, and I stand by it.

Yours,
Erich Neumann

¹⁴⁴ The letter was written in Zurich between the publication of Gustav Bally’s article on 27 February 1934 and Neumann’s departure in May 1934.

¹⁴⁵ Toni Anna Wolff (1888–1953): Born into a wealthy and distinguished Zurich family, Toni Wolff was sent to Jung for treatment in 1910 after the death of her father the previous year. She became the soul mate, mistress, and companion of Jung and was of particular importance for him during the time of his crises and subsequent exploration of the unconscious in the years after 1913. She played a pivotal role in the foundation of the Zurich Psychological Club in 1916 and presided over it from 1928 to 1945. Patients coming to see Jung for therapy would often see her as well. When Erich Neumann came to Zurich in 1933 he underwent therapy with both. Toni Wolff also became the therapist of Julie Neumann when Erich and Julie visited Zurich in May and June 1936 (see Neumann’s letters to Jung from 30 January 1936 [19 N], and 15 April 1953 [95 N]). Neumann and Toni Wolff wrote to each other on a regular basis from 1934 until her death of a heart attack on 21 March 1953. Neumann wrote a letter of condolence to Jung (see letter from 15 April 1953 [95 N]). Toni Wolff is the author of Structural Forms of the Feminine Psyche (Strukturformen der weiblichen Psyche) (1951) and the collection of essays Studies on the Psychology of C. G. Jung (Studien zur Psychologie C. G. Jungs) (1959). On Toni Wolff see Molton and Sikes (2011).

¹⁴⁶ Gustav Bally (1893–1966): German-born psychiatrist and psychotherapist. Studied medicine in Zurich and Heidelberg from 1913 to 1920 and had psychiatric training at the university clinic of Zurich with Eugen Bleuler and the Münsingen Sanatorium in Bern from 1921 to 1926. From 1924 on, he trained at the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute among others with Hanns Sachs and Karen Horney. Professor at the commercial college of St. Gall from 1947 to 1956, thereafter he held the chair for psychotherapy at the University of Zurich. In 1948, he founded—together with Manfred Bleuler and Medard Boss—the Zurich Institute for Medical Psychotherapy. His published works include On the Scope of Freedom (Vom Ursprung und den Grenzen der Freiheit) (1945) and Introduction to the Psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud (Einführung in die Psychoanalyse Sigmund Freuds) (1961). When Jung was elected president of the General Medical Society for Psychotherapy (Allgemeine ärztliche Gesellschaft für Psychotherapie) and demanded in his editorial to the society’s journal Zentralblatt für Psychotherapie und ihre Grenzgebiete (Jung, 1933) that the differences between the Germanic and Jewish psychology should no longer be blurred, Bally wrote a harsh critique of Jung’s race-psychological arguments and his presidency of the AÄGP in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 27 February 1934 (Bally, 1934). Jung responded with a “Rejoinder to Dr. Bally” (“Zeitgenössisches”) on 13/14 March 1934 (Jung, 1934). Despite their controversy in 1934, Bally and Jung remained in collegial contact and worked together on a regular basis as members of the Commission on Psychotherapy of the Swiss Society of Psychiatry. See introduction, pp. xxii–xxiii.

¹⁴⁷ Jung, “The State of Psychotherapy Today” (1934a). In his text Jung reiterates and elaborates on his race psychological considerations raised in his editorial to the Zentralblatt (Jung, 1933), calling it a big psychological mistake of medical psychology to apply Jewish categories to the Christian Germans or Slavs (Jung, 1934a, § 354). See introduction, pp. xxii.

¹⁴⁸ In Johann Wolfgang Goethe’s (1749–1832) tragedy Stella (1806), Fernando exclaims at the end: “Great God!—you who sends angels to us in our extremities, grant us strength to support their mighty presence” (editor’s translation) (“Gott im Himmel, der du ...