Topic: Jung's research method

[Krathos]

Hi,

I just discover this forum, it seems great. Right now I am preparing the report of my thesis and I am not sure about how to classify the kind of research that Jung did. Comparative analysis, cross-cultural research...?  I would be very thankfull if someone could help with this.

Bye.

[Matt Koeske]

Hi,

I just discover this forum, it seems great. Right now I am preparing the report of my thesis and I am not sure about how to classify the kind of research that Jung did. Comparative analysis, cross-cultural research...?  I would be very thankfull if someone could help with this.

Bye.

Hi Krathos,

Welcome to Useless Science!

I'm not sure if I can answer your question definitively.  Jung drew his ideas from many places: the analysis of his patients and himself, lots and lots of scholarly study in various theologies, philosophies, the occult, psychology and medicine, anthropology, mythology, history, literature, art, modern physics, and what could perhaps be considered "field studies" (specifically in African and in the US with Native American tribes) . . . and many other places, to boot.

One of the most interesting things about Jung (and Jungian psychology) is that he drew from every source he came in contact with.  Something of a 20th century "Renaissance Man", perhaps.

With the exception of his academic training in clinical psychology and medicine, Jung wasn't really a specialist in any particular area (in the way most academics today are) . . . or so at least he was fond of claiming.  Although, his study and collection of medieval alchemical writings would, I think, qualify him as one of the leading experts in the world on alchemy (especially during his lifetime).  He was also one of those Westerners in the forefront of studying some of the Eastern philosophies and symbol systems.

He demurred about being a qualified theologian, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was as widely read as most theological scholars in the area . . . and perhaps even better read in the existing Gnostic texts at the time.

Sorry if these lists don't help you find a name that will pull it all together for you . . . but I would think you should be able to come up with your own personalized classification without drawing criticism.

Good luck with the thesis!

Best Regards,
Matt

[Sealchan]

From what I can tell, after he broke with Freud, much of his study was in the library.  He researched and quoted from mythology, philosophy and poetry in order to demonstrate the validity of his ideas.  Also, he saw patients and dealt with their dreams and fantasies and helped them to untangle themselves from their complexes.  So his lab was the individual patient.

But while he was with Freud, I suspect he had a more clinical and even scientific mode of study with word association and whatnot.

[Matt Koeske]

But while he was with Freud, I suspect he had a more clinical and even scientific mode of study with word association and whatnot.

And of course, before Freud, he was already at the Burghölzli in Zürich overseeing institutionalized patients and studying "dementia praecox".  His early professional years seemed to be composed partially of Western medical orientations and partially of "occult dabblings".  Post-Freud, his Analytical Psychology could be seen as an amalgam of these two disparate "ways of knowing" (as our dear Sealchan terms it).

And for my personal shtick, this could be seen as a foray into the "religion-science coniunctio" (taking up the gauntlet of the medieval alchemists).