SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • AJA;
  • IAAP;
  • IGAP;
  • Jung's Collected Works;
  • SAP;
  • splits

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References

The Jungian analyst Gerhard Adler left Berlin and re-settled in London in 1936. He was closely involved with the professionalization of analytical psychology internationally and in the UK, including the formation of the International Association for Analytical Psychology (IAAP) and The Society of Analytical Psychology (SAP).The tensions that arose within the latter organization led to a split that ended in the formation of the Association of Jungian Analysts (AJA). A further split at AJA resulted in the creation of another organization, the Independent Group of Analytical Psychologists (IGAP). Adler's extensive publications include his role as an editor of Jung's Collected Works and as editor of the C.G. Jung Letters.

TRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT

L'analyste jungien Gerhard Adler quitta Berlin pour s'installer à Londres en 1936. Il s'est beaucoup engagé dans la professionnalisation de la psychologie analytique, tant sur le plan international qu'en Grande-Bretagne, en particulier dans la création de L'Association Internationale de Psychologie Analytique (AIPA), et de la Society of Analytical Psychology (SAP). Les tensions qui ont surgi au sein de cette dernière ont conduit à une scission qui s'est terminée par la formation de l’Association of Jungian Analysts (AJA). Une nouvelle scission au sein de l'AJA a abouti à la création d'une nouvelle société, The Independent Group of Analytical Psychologists (IGAP). S'ajoute à cela le rôle qu'Adler a joué en tant qu'éditeur de nombreuses publications dont les Collected Works de Jung et la Correspondance de C.G. Jung.

Der Jungianische Analytiker Gerhard Adler verließ Berlin und ließ sich 1936 in London nieder. Er war eng verbunden mit der Professionalisierung der Analytischen Psychologie im internationalen Rahmen wie auch in Großbritannien, einschließlich der Gründung der International Association for Analytical Psychology / Internationalen Gesellschaft für Analytische Psychologie (IAAP / IGAP) und der Society of Analytical Psychology (SAP). Die in letzterer Organisation aufgetauchten Spannungen führten zu einer Spaltung, die in die Bildung der Association of Jungian Analysts (AJA) mündete. Eine weitere Spaltung der AJA resultierte in der Schaffung einer weiteren Organisation, der Independent Group of Analytical Psychologists (IGAP). Adlers umfangreiche Publikationsaktivitäten schließen seine Rolle als Herausgeber von Jungs Collected Works sowie von C.G. Jung Letters ein.

L'analista junghiano Gerhard Adler lasciò Berlino e si stabilì a Londra nel 1936. Fu strettamente implicato nella professionalizzazione della psicologia analitica a livello internazionale e nel Regno Unito, inclusa la formazione dell’Associazione Internazionale per la Psicologia Analitica (IAAP) e la Società di Psicologia Analitica (SAP). Le tensioni che sorsero all'interno di quest'ultima organizzazione condussero a una scissione che finì nella formazione della Associazione degli Analisti Junghiani (AJA). Una ulteriore scissione dell'AJA diede vita alla creazione di un'altra organizzazione, Il gruppo Indipendente degli Psicologi Analisti (IGAP). Le numerose pubblicazioni di Adler includono il suo ruolo come editore delle Opere di C.G. Jung e come editore delle Lettere di C.G. Jung.

Юнгианский аналитик Герхард Адлер покинул Берлин и переселился в Лондон в 1936 году. Он был плотно задействован в профессионализации аналитической психологии как на международной сцене, так и в Великобритании - включая его работу по формированию Международной Ассоциации Аналитической Психологии (IAAP) и Общества Аналитической Психологии (SAP). Напряженность, возникшая в этой последней организации, привела к разрыву, закончившемуся основанием Ассоциации Юнгианских Аналитиков (AJA). Последующий раскол в AJA привел к созданию еще одной организации, Независимой Группы Аналитических Психологов (IGAP). Обширные публикации Адлера включают в себя его редакторскую работу над «Полным Собранием Сочинений» Юнга и «Писем Юнга».

El analista junguiano, Gerhard Adler, abandonó Berlín y re-establecido en Londres en 1936. Él estaba estrechamente vinculado con la profesionalización de la psicología analítica internacionalmente y en el REINO UNIDO, incluyendo la formación de la Asociación Internacional de Psicología Analítica (IAAP), y la Sociedad de Psicología Analítica (SAP). Las tensionesque se produjeron en la última organización llevó a una división que terminó en la creación de la asociación de analistas Junguianos (AJA). Una nueva división en el AJA diolugar a la creación de otra organización, el Grupo Independiente de los psicólogos analíticos (IGAP). Las extensas publicaciones de Adler incluyen su papel como editor de Obras Completas de Jung y como editor de las Cartas de C. G. Jung.

If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change

(di Lampedusa 1958, p. 27)

Preamble

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References

The analytical psychologist, Gerhard Adler, was born in Berlin in 1904, where his father was a businessman. In 1927, he gained his PhD in psychology, philosophy and history from the University of Freiburg. Later, he underwent a training analysis with C.G. Jung from 1931–34, and set up an analytical practice in Berlin from 1932–36. In 1936, he and his older brother, a doctor, had to immigrate to the UK. For most of his life, Adler's work remained closely associated with the seminal ideas of Jung, whom he championed on many occasions. In this regard, Jung said of him: ‘I appreciate it…that for once one of my pupils has broken a lance for me’ (Jung 1976, p. 443). This was written in response to Adler's defence of Jung against accusations of being pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic.

‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References

In a personal account of his early life and subsequent meeting with Jung entitled ‘Reflections on “chance,” “fate,” and synchronicity’ (1991), Gerhard Adler situates the starting date of his analysis with Jung in January 1931 following a recommendation from James Kirsch, his previous analyst in Berlin. However, in a filmed interview conducted in September 1976 entitled The World Within, Adler has the date as 1930 at a frequency of three to four times weekly. At the same time, he was also seeing Toni Wolff for analysis, which meant he was in analysis every day with one or the other of them. Early in the analysis with Jung, Adler describes having a ‘big’ dream in which he seemed to go through his whole life, past, present, and future. When he awoke he could recall no actual details from it. Jung's reaction was to say that Adler had to forget all the details as it would have been impossible for him to live a free and creative life had he retained the knowledge of all that was to happen to him.

The above account includes the difficult decision Gerhard and his wife, Hella, had to take to forego a visit in 1953 to their friends, Erich and Julie Neumann, in Israel. This was based on a strong sense that they needed to go to Zürich, instead. While there, Gerhard had analysis with Toni Wolff, who allotted him one hour a day. On Friday 20thMarch he was the last person to have a session with her, during which time he felt all the splintered bits of his psyche coming together in a true coniunctio. Following this session, he went home with a sense of peace having fixed the next session for Monday 23rd March. The Adlers then left Zürich for the weekend and returned to the news that Toni Wolf had died of a heart attack in the early hours of the night of the 20th–21st. Adler felt he would never have forgiven himself if he had missed seeing and working with her for the last time.

Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References

Following their arrival in London in 1936, Gerhard and Hella Adler had a son, Michael, in 1939, and a daughter, Miriam, in 1944. ‘During the War they moved to Oxford, staying at first with the anthropologist and Jungian analyst, John Layard, whom they had met in Zürich’ (Doorley 2009, p. 1). From my experience and from that of others who got to know them well, the Adlers were not forthcoming about their lives in 1930s Berlin. In the above-mentioned film interview, Adler mentions bringing his son (from his first marriage) to school in England in 1933 because he already sensed the approaching threat of what was to come in Germany. He says he never returned to Germany after 1936 as a basic trust had been broken. Hella and Gerhard's daughter, Miriam, told me when we were together in Berlin in 2012 that she had no recollection of her parents speaking German with each other.

Adler practised from 1936–47 as a child therapist at the London Child Guidance Training Centre commuting to London from Oxford during the War years. He also lectured at the Tavistock Clinic in 1936 and 1937. In 1956, Adler was a founding member of the International Association for Analytical Psychology (IAAP), of which he was president from 1971–77, as well as the editor of the proceedings of the first and fifth congresses of the IAAP. Adler's presidency overlapped with the split within The Society of Analytical Psychology (SAP) and the formation of the Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training), to which the ‘SAP gave its blessings…and it was encouraged by the IAAP executive committee’ (Kirsch 2000, p. 44). Adler was president of the IAAP at the time, which helped with the acceptance of AJA as a separate organization (Gerhard Adler, personal communication 8th May 1988).

image

G. Adler with Hilde Kirsch, next to Liliane Frey-Rohn; to his right, his daughter Miriam Stone. First executive meeting of the IAAP in 1956 at the Hotel Sonnenberg, Zürich. [Tom Kirsch's Collection]

In his article on the theme of the 1974 congress held in London that was published in The Journal of Analytical Psychology in 1975, the centenary of Jung's birth, Adler acknowledges there is a need for clinical research but ‘Jung's metapsychology, centred in the numinosum, deserves our greatest attention’ (Adler 1975a).

A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References

Some of the material in this section are based on an article I was invited to contribute to the fortieth anniversary issue in 1995 of The Journal of Analytical Psychology entitled ‘A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom’. I was aware the topic was of a highly sensitive nature so that, as a preparation to writing it, I interviewed Jungian analysts from the four IAAP societies in the UK (One of these was Andrew Samuels who was a great help). I also interviewed the Jung scholar, Sonu Shamdasani.

In addition, Michael Fordham was particularly generous with his time. He invited me to meet with him on the 4th September 1994, in the course of which we spent a whole day together at his family home, Severalls, in Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire. This was shortly before Fordham's death and I could see that he was ailing physically though his mind was completely clear. I was intrigued to hear Fordham's version of what had happened between him and Adler in the 1970s as, up to that time, I had only heard the latter's version of events. Over the course of a long day, Fordham initially talked of the tensions between himself and Adler as having their origin in theoretical differences. As our conversation developed, he eventually opened up about his feelings and admitted he had not liked Adler, describing him as power-driven in wanting to turn the Professional Committee of the Society of Analytical Psychology (SAP) into an oligarchy. Fordham went on to say he was glad to see the back of Adler when the latter left the SAP, though they were never formally alienated.

Fordham's description of Adler as power-driven resembles the way the Adlers conducted themselves at AJA where they held the power. Following Gerhard's death in December 1988, Hella continued as chair of the Training Committee well into the nineties until circumstances led her to relinquish it. My own impression that Hella was the power behind the throne was confirmed by Thomas Kirsch, President of the IAAP from 1989 to 1995. Furthermore, according to Kirsch, before he had completed his term of office as IAAP president, Gerhard Adler had inserted a clause to allow IAAP past presidents to attend Executive Committee meetings and be paid for their travel. Kirsch acknowledges that Adler was a dominant figure in the late 1950s and early 1960s in the Jungian world internationally but, when he came to the Executive Committee of the IAAP in 1984 to plead for AJA and was still vying for power, he was a pathetic figure. Kirsch further contends that Adler was an extremely difficult man for a lot of people, although he was also capable of inspiring affection (Thomas Kirsch personal communication 6th June 2013). Kirsch adds that as Adler was a leading figure for many years in the Jungian world and had not been properly recognized, he is glad that this article is appearing in the Journal as it emphasizes Adler's many positive qualities, including his love of classical music and art, and his deep interests in all aspects of culture and history which were broad and deep. I would add to this that my personal feelings for him were always warm and my professional dealings with him were largely unproblematic apart from an incident in 1988 detailed below in this article.

Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References

The institutionalization of analytical psychology in the United Kingdom had its origins in the founding in 1922 of the Analytical Psychology Club, which Jung visited in 1923. Its membership expanded in the 1930s with the arrival of Jewish analysts from Germany and Austria. Similar events were taking place at The British Psycho-Analytical Society founded in 1919. ‘The beginnings of a rapprochement between Freudians and Jungians in London started on a clinical level in the Medical Section of The British Psychological Society in the period 1945-74’ (Casement 1995, p. 328). This was to have long-term consequences for the development of analytical psychology in the UK, and for the subsequent direction taken by Gerhard Adler.

‘It became increasingly apparent in the 1940s that professionalization of the Jungian movement was essential in order to establish it in the psychotherapeutic, psychological and psychiatric worlds’ (ibid, p. 329). Out of this growing realization emerged The Society of Analytical Psychology (SAP), whose Memorandum and Articles of Association were formulated in 1946. The founding members cited in that document are as follows: Gerhard Adler, C.M. Barker, Frieda Fordham, Michael Fordham, Philip Metman, Robert Moody and Lotte (‘Lola’) Paulsen. An important figure at that time was the psychiatrist and analyst, E.A. Bennet, who was at the Maudsley Hospital. It was due to him that several members of the first SAP training in 1947 were psychiatrists, including Robert Hobson, Gordon Stewart Prince and Anthony Storr.

Before proceeding to look more closely at the role played by Gerhard Adler in the institutionalization of analytical psychology in the United Kingdom, two important pieces of editorial work he undertook after the Second World War will be included at this point in the article.

Collected Works and Letters

Gerhard Adler was an editor of the English edition of The Collected Works and editor of the two volumes of the C.G. Jung: Letters. The following account of how these came to be published is taken from a chapter in a book I edited called Who Owns Jung? (2007). The chapter's title, ‘The incomplete works of Jung’, was contributed by Sonu Shamdasani, Philemon Professor of Jung History at the Centre for the History of Psychological Disciplines at University College London. ‘To date the principal source for studies of Jung and for works in analytical psychology has been his Collected Works and the two volumes of Letters’ (Shamdasani 2007, p. 173). Shamdasani goes on to say that the publication of these has had unsuspected consequences on how Jung's work has come to be understood.

With regard to the two volumes of the C.G. Jung: Letters published in 1973 and 1976 that were edited by Gerhard Adler in collaboration with Aniela Jaffé, Shamdasani's researches suggest that only ten per cent of Jung's letters are represented in the two volumes. Furthermore, the editors’ policy of publishing only Jung's letters, and of not including those from his correspondents, had decontextualized the letters chosen for publication. In addition, the larger share of the letters chosen to appear in the two volumes were from Jung's later years when Aniela Jaffé was his secretary. The bulk of these are on religious subjects, which means they are not fully representative of Jung in correspondence.

In summary, Shamdasani suggests that for both the Collected Works and the Letters, it is vital to ‘uncollect’ these works and start from basic primary research. The further work that needs to be done is in the area of research and for the comparison of manuscripts with first and subsequent editions, together with the study of complete correspondences. ‘Without such publications, secondary and tertiary literature on Jung will continue to be based on unstable foundations’ (ibid., p. 183). Tellingly, Shamdasani compares the editorial work in the Collected Works unfavourably with The Standard Edition of Freud's work: ‘let alone in critical historical editions like Harvard University Press works of William James, or indeed the Bollingen Foundation's exemplary edition of the works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’ (ibid., p. 181).

The first split

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References

Let us now return to the professionalization of analytical psychology in the UK. From its inception, the training at the SAP was set up along professional lines. In 1947, training candidates were required to have academic qualifications and the clinical and theoretical components of training were interrelated. The SAP pioneered the separation of supervision from analysis, following the model of the Institute of Psycho-Analysis, so that clinical supervision became part of the training.

It had been generally assumed that the first split at the SAP occurred between Gerhard Adler and Michael Fordham. However, in the course of researching this article for the JAP, it came to light that events at the Society proceeded in the following manner: E.A. Bennet was a close friend of Jung with the latter staying with him in London in 1935 while he (Jung) was delivering the Tavistock Lectures. Bennet, an establishment figure, was a consultant at the Maudsley Hospital, who had also been responsible for organizing psychiatry in India. In addition, he was a general in the army. As the SAP developed, Bennet, along with Gerhard Adler and others, found himself increasingly at odds with the more psychoanalytic approach that was evolving there. Increasingly, the focus shifted to work with transference/countertransference, as a result of which, the SAP's Professional Committee began to question the way that Bennet, Adler, and other like-minded analysts worked clinically. As tensions mounted, Bennet resigned from the SAP in 1963.

The SAP/AJA split

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References

The next split at the SAP occurred over the period 1975–76 and has been personalized as the Fordham/Adler split. There clearly were personality and cultural differences between the two analysts—Fordham, for instance, came from a long-established English family and was himself an innovator. In the course of my meeting with him, he confirmed that he was grateful to Jung for being big enough to realize that he (Fordham) was doing something truly original in working directly with children, in that way extending the frontiers of analytical psychology.

Gerhard Adler, being German Jewish, was from a completely different background to Fordham. As has already been touched upon in this article, Adler developed a strong positive transference on to Jung that remained with him for the rest of his life. As a result, he experienced the psychoanalytic developments at the SAP as tantamount to a betrayal of Jung's ideas.

The tensions at the SAP between what are at times referred to as the ‘London’ and ‘Zürich’ approaches bear a marked similarity to those that erupted during the War years at the British Psycho-Analytical Society (BP-AS) between the Freudian and Kleinian approaches. The interested reader is directed to the well-researched book by the psychoanalysts, Pearl King and Ricardo Steiner, entitled The Freud-Klein Controversies 1941–45. A quote by James Strachey from that book goes as follows: ‘Why should these wretched fascists and (bloody foreigners) communists invade our peaceful compromising island?’ (King/Steiner 1991, p. 33).The BP-AS was fortunate in having Dame Sylvia Payne, whose efforts, along with those of other middle group analysts at the British Society, managed to prevent the Freudians from leaving thus avoiding a split.

Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July 1975

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References

In 1975(b), Adler produced the following ‘Statement’:

In Dr Bosanquet's letter of May 6th in which she suggested a meeting between the SAP and ‘my’ group, she also asked for a statement of the plans for this group. She suggested three points around which the discussion of this meeting should centre.

I would like to concentrate on point 3: ‘…to consider the areas in which the main differences between our group and that of the SAP occur’. This point seems to cover the crucial problem on which the answer to the first two depends. The main difference is not one of technical subtleties but of basic ideological approach. I tried to formulate this in my paper to the 1968 Congress where I said that ‘We have something more than differences in method and interpretation…we have a basic problem…of fundamental divergences of approach, an epistemological problem resting on metapsychological premises. This is not merely a question of technique but the much more decisive problem of first principles’.

We put the archetypal and prospective character of the unconscious into the centre of our clinical and theoretical work. Here I would like to quote what Jung wrote in a letter of 1945 (to P.W. Martin, 20-8-45): ‘…You are quite right, the main interest of my work is not concerned with the treatment of neuroses but rather with the approach to the numinous. But the fact is that the approach to the numinous is the real therapy and inasmuch as you attain to the numinous experiences you are released from the curse of pathology’. In a clinical and practical sense this means that we put the main emphasis on symbolic transformation. Child development is an aspect of the unfolding of the archetypes and not vice-versa. We realize that in the field of child therapy and its significance for adult life we can learn a great deal from the work of the SAP. But we also maintain that in adult analysis the experience of archetypes may take precedence over personal historical material. In our view it is in many cases possible and desirable to achieve a resolution of infantile fixations and complexes by an analysis focusing on the genuine experience of the symbolic contents of dreams.

From this it follows that we regard dream analysis as the absolutely essential and indispensable therapeutic procedure. We are, of course, fully awake to the problem of transference, but its analysis takes second place by a long distance and in its interpretation we particularly note its archetypal aspects. (I have dealt with this at some length in my book ‘The Living Symbol’, in the chapter on the ‘Archetypal Aspect of Transference’).

Dreams to us are the manifestations of the objective psyche, and as such full of archetypal contents. In our view one cannot expect to learn about dreams, archetypes and the living reality of the psyche through seminars, reading or any other theoretical approach. Their truth can only be discovered from experience in the actual process of a Jungian analysis and in life itself.

Our approach differs also on the technical side which, however, is more than technical—it is symptomatic. I refer here to the problem of frequency of interviews and of couch versus chair. We trust in the creative working of the unconscious between interviews, and believe that it is essential to allow the patient to experience the unconscious independently and outside the analytical hour, expressing the rhythm of systole and diastole. Thus we generally regard three weekly interviews as fully adequate. Regarding the couch/chair quandary we do not believe that a true dialectical process, based on the common experience of the creative unconscious and its archetypal images can take place in the couch situation. The two different situations seem to us to express two basically different attitudes to the human situation between two people.

Jung's view of the nature of the psyche covers a wide spectrum including in particular the concept of the opposites, as does his view of the nature of man formulated especially in his ideas about the Anthropos image. The individual is unique, and his life process and symbolical material are never wholly reducible in theoretical terms.

Having said all this I am aware of the difficulty of conveying the real differences in our approaches. They are only too often imponderables, expressing basic human reactions to Jung's work. They belong in the area of metapsychology, of the attitude to the numinosity of the unconscious, of the religious—in its widest sense—character of therapy, of the acceptance or rejection of the ‘occult’ areas of Jung's work, such as synchronicity, alchemy, ESP phenomena. Jung's concept of the reality of the psyche stands in the centre of our work and thought. We accept Jung's work in its entirety, not looking for ‘what is essential and what is parenthetical to his main thesis’.

Perhaps it is relevant here to mention the different attitudes to the split between Freud and Jung. Whereas the general reaction of the SAP to the split is that it was a tragedy which has to be repaired, to us it appears as inevitable, necessary and creative, since these two men represented two diametrically opposed ideologies, (a view incidentally shared by Ellenberger).

Here I want to quote from the editorial introduction to ‘Analytical Psychology: A Modern Science’, where it is stated that ‘…a wide variety of patients seeking aid seem to need the kind of approach that has been linked with psychoanalysis and with methods described by Jung and considered in his earlier writings to be appropriate to such cases’. This seems to us simply to go back to Jung's psycho-analytical period which became quite peripheral to his later and independent concepts. Not only do we feel that this ‘approach that has been linked with psychoanalysis’ has taken preference in the work of the SAP over Jung's truly revolutionary discoveries, but we feel that many ‘patients seeking aid’ are much better served with the latter.

We are convinced that Jung's work is full of still unrealized potentialities for the future of therapy, and that much of what the SAP regard as progressive and on-going is in fact a regression to pre-Jungian concepts which have to a large extent been made redundant by Jung's discoveries. Although we find much value in the work of other schools we put Jung's work absolutely and fully in the centre of our practice and theory.

To sum up, I may be allowed to quote from my presidential address to the 1974 Congress. There I talked of the truth of the archetypal images, the dominant influence which they exert on the fate of mankind, the reality of an inner Olympus with its gods and goddesses…the religious dignity and the relevance of the individual as the receiver and carrier of the numinous revelation. In the centre of all Jung's research we can put the search for the numinous. All the other areas of analytical psychology have to be looked at from this angle.

It is only within this context that the clinical aspects of analytical psychology make any sense. I hope that this necessarily brief and highly condensed statement of our approach to analytical psychology may serve as the basis for our discussion today.

Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References

Gerhard Adler finally declared that his hurt and angry feelings in recent years towards the SAP had been sublimated into constructive libido that he wished to invest elsewhere. The result was the formation in 1976, with other colleagues, of the nucleus of a new body consisting of analysts trained in Zürich ‘and others [who] had come up through the ranks in Britain’ (Casement 1995, p. 335). At the 1977 IAAP International Congress in Rome, the Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training) was accepted as a member of the International Association for Analytical Psychology (IAAP).

The years 1977 to 1981 were a period of growth and stability within AJA with the two different populations—one oriented to London, the other to Zürich—co-habiting harmoniously. Initially, Adler was surrounded by colleagues who accepted that the Association of Jungian Analysts (AJA) was his ‘baby’. The orientation within the organization derived from a combination of Adler's close personal association with Jung and Erich Neumann allied to his respect for the achievements of psychoanalysis. In this way, he saw himself as occupying a middle position between the Zürich approach and the one on offer at the SAP. In his clinical practice, Adler opted to see patients thrice-weekly for analysis with transference/countertransference being a central feature of analysis. ‘Above all, the concept of boundaries mattered for him and he and his close associates at AJA became increasingly dubious about the way some of their Zürich-trained colleagues functioned in this area’ (ibid., p. 336).

The training in Zürich, on the other hand, did not specify thrice-weekly analysis, nor were boundaries between analyst and analysand as strictly maintained as in London. According to Nathan Schwartz-Salant's account of his training at Zürich, transference as part of that did not feature at all: ‘I never heard the word transference mentioned in any clinical seminar!’ (ibid., p. 336).

Tensions between the two populations at AJA mounted as Zürich-trained analysts increased their demands to have their colleagues who had received the Zürich diploma automatically accepted at AJA if they moved to London. This ran contrary to the by-laws of AJA, which stipulated that anyone applying for membership, after having trained elsewhere, would have to see a case under supervision for a year and attend monthly meetings before being assessed as suitable. This, combined with other contentious issues at the organization, led to 50% of the membership withdrawing. A number of meetings took place between younger members of each faction in an attempt to avoid yet another split involving AJA. In the end, this proved impossible and the organization split in two, with the new group calling itself the Independent Group of Analytical Psychologists (IGAP). Twelve members and three founding members were represented in each of the two groups.

Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References

Following the split of 1982, Gerhard Adler issued a ‘Statement’ about AJA's position to the remaining members of the organization. As this ‘Statement’ incorporates some of the ideas expressed in the one made on 5th July 1975(a) about the split from the SAP, an edited version will be presented here. Both documents were given to me by Gerhard at the time I was writing a profile on him for a book being put together by Aldo Carotenuto that was to be edited by Carlo Trombetta entitled Piscologia Analitica Contemporanea (1989).

It has been suggested that I formulate a short statement about what AJA stands for. I shall try to do so, but hope it will not be understood as a programme, rather as a basis for a discussion among our members. We started our first training course in 1976, even before we were accepted by the IAAP, the SAP generously voting for our admission. In the following years we were joined by Inge Allenby, Ean Begg, Sasha Duddington, Linda Freeman-Lipman, John Nicholas, Bani Shorter, Gordon Starte, Molly Tuby thus forming a group of 11 members. Perhaps it was significant that David Holt, Neil Micklem and Bani Shorter decided not to vote with AJA but with the Graduates.

The statement proceeds to elucidate the differences in approach between the SAP and the ‘Adler Group’ that are contained in the statement of July 1975. Adler then goes on to say:

I feel that what I said then is still valid. But in the meantime, we have not only had to contend with the attitude of the SAP, but sadly also with that of the colleagues who have left us. Inevitably, but unfortunately, the differences between them and us have become so personalised that the true issues have been virtually lost in acrimonious reproaches in which our group has had its share. Instead of going on personifying the conflict, we must now try to understand what really underlies the split. I think it is very largely a question of different standards. Ean Begg, who made several statements, attempted to make it clear where the differences lie. He has expressed himself strongly against any clinical training, saying that he had to rescue candidates from the bad effects of being brainwashed by such a training, and that accordingly candidates should not have to put up with a minimum of 6 months experience in mental hospital. He equally has been most doubtful about the use of supervision. In fairness to him, I want to add that the reason for this negative attitude to clinical experience and supervision is that he feels that analysts should develop their own method of conducting an analysis. Perhaps we may discuss this statement of his and our attitude today.

Thus we find ourselves halfway between the creative side of the SAP and the creative teaching of the Institute. From the SAP we can—and I would like to say, have to, learn a much more strict technical and clinical approach—a much more disciplined attitude and a very great deal about developmental psychology. From the Zürich approach we have to learn the importance of the archetypal dimension and everything connected with active imagination. I think we are going in the right direction in trying to find our way between these two attitudes; sad as the split that has occurred is, it may stimulate us into renewed effort and into a clearer understanding of our specific position. I think that such a position as I have tried to outline is absolutely necessary and vital to the development of Jungian psychology and its teaching. It is the ethical commitment to the self that binds us together, and that we must never forget to honour.

(Adler 1983)

The UK Umbrella Group

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References

At the following two international Congresses of the IAAP, issues to do with the UK featured on the agendas. At the 1983 Congress in Jerusalem, AJA was suspended from the IAAP as there were deep divisions within the organization (my recollection and Thomas Kirsch's personal communication 13th October 2013) while IGAP was discussed as a possible member of the IAAP. The Adlers were not present at the 1983 Congress, leaving it, instead, to junior analysts and training candidates to deal with the difficulties there. At the 1986 Congress in Berlin, AJA was reinstated as a member of the IAAP and was allowed to drop the words ‘alternative training’ after its title. At the same time, IGAP was accepted as a member. At the instigation of the President of the IAAP, Hans Dieckmann, an informal meeting of the UK IAAP groups agreed that a joint forum for meetings was needed in London. This was inaugurated at the SAP in December 1986 and has held regular meetings since that time under the title of the Umbrella Group. These are attended by representatives of the four UK IAAP societies (a fifth, the Guild of Analytical Psychologists, was voted in as an IAAP Group Member at the 2013 Copenhagen Congress).

The Umbrella Group has contributed creatively to analytical psychology in the UK, including the first two British pan-Jungian conferences in the 1990s that raised money for the Umbrella Group. Representatives of the four UK societies went on to work amicably together on the Organizing Committee of the IAAP Cambridge Congress in 2001, which I chaired. Given the past history of analytical psychology in the UK, the Umbrella Group provides a necessary forum for discussion and airing of differences between the UK societies.

Another joint effort in the UK, the Russian Revival Project, was officially recognized and partly funded by the IAAP, approved by the Russian Ministry of Health, and coordinated by Catherine Crowther and Jan Wiener of the SAP. It began work in 1998 with a two-year programme of teaching weekends in St Petersburg conducted by individual members of the four UK societies that included Renos Papadopoulos (IGAP), Hester Solomon (BAP), Andrew Samuels (SAP), and Ann Casement (AJA). In 2003, a clinical training developed in Moscow leading to the institutionalizing of analytical psychology in Russia.

The aftermath of splits

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References

Gerhard Adler played an important role in the professionalization of analytical psychology in the UK and in the two major splits that ensued in the seventies and early eighties. Two eminent Jungian analysts, James Astor and Thomas Kirsch, have written the following about Adler.

Although he had received wide support from the international Jungian community in his struggles with Fordham, when similar political battles occurred within the AJA, he was seen in a less favourable light.

(Kirsch 2000, p. 44)

In contrast, Kirsch's view of Michael Fordham is as follows:

His interactions with psychoanalysts had a mutually long-lasting, beneficial result, with the inclusion in the theory of analytical psychology of many insights from psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic technique. The majority of analytical psychologists in England practice a mixture of analytical psychology and object-relations theory as a result of the pioneering efforts of Fordham.

(ibid., p. 46)

In a recent article, James Astor has suggested there was in Michael Fordham ‘a blind spot concerning the relationship of father to son’:

These rumblings have concerned Fordham's relationship with other male colleagues and his competitiveness. An example would be that, notwithstanding Fordham's working with Gerhard Adler on Jung's collected works, he could not conceal his dislike of him and his analytic methods, a fact which contributed to Adler leaving the SAP and forming an alternative Jungian association, an organization which also had difficulty with his personality and led to yet another split, which Ann Casement (1995) has chronicled.

(Astor 2007, p. 201)

With regard to what Astor says about Fordham's blind spot concerning father/son relations, it seems possible there was a competitive power shadow of rival sons at work in the Adler/Fordham interaction, and the fact that the former analysed with Jung and the latter did not may have contributed to their problematic relations.

Gerhard Adler's publications

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References

In the course of his prolific output as a writer, Gerhard Adler produced several books including Studies in Analytical Psychology (1966), The Living Symbol: A Case Study in the Process of Individuation (1961), and Dynamics of the Self (1979).The Living Symbol shares an affinity with Jung's Psychology and Alchemy (1953) and H.G. Baynes’ Mythology of the Soul (1949) in utilizing amplification. For Jung, the end in view was the development of the mandala and the concept of the collective unconscious, while Adler's intentions in The Living Symbol are closer to Baynes’ in dealing with the emerging symbolic contents in the drawings and paintings of patients.

The Living Symbol focuses on the first year of a five-year long analysis of one patient in the course of which contact with inner processes led almost unobtrusively to the resolution of symptoms. Adler's ultimate goal in writing the book was to present a case study illustrating the process of individuation utilizing a classical Jungian approach that was simultaneously informed by a more psychoanalytical one rooted in transference/countertransference.

In his book, Adler tells of a patient, a woman of forty-eight from a cultured background, who had done well at school and university and later in her professional and social life. On the other hand, her relationship to her femininity had remained undeveloped; however, she had the psychological insight to realize that this was due to having lived her life in reaction to her mother with whom she had had difficulties. The presenting symptom was severe claustrophobia from which the patient had suffered since her mid-thirties. Following a severe attack while staying at a hotel in Switzerland, the attacks had become increasingly frequent, which had resulted in her starting analysis with Adler.

An important realization during the course of this year of analysis was that the patient had a deep-seated need to impress the analyst ‘which contained a genuine need for acceptance on a deep level’ (Adler 1961, p. 334). It was agreed between the two that this need was connected with the claustrophobia; analytic insight led to the releasing of a considerable amount of libido that had been invested in the symptom. This realization, in turn, led unobtrusively to the resolution of the symptom.

After reading the chapter on ‘The fight with the angel’ in the book, The Living Symbol, Professor Dr. A. Mitscherlich, a Freudian analyst at Heidelberg University, wrote to Adler in June 1963 as follows:

I have just read your essay on the transpersonal aspect of transference. For a very long time no manuscript has immediately meant so much to me and has moved and enriched me. If a strict Freudian says this to you, I can imagine that it would give you great pleasure. I am glad that we could gain this essay for the psyche. In the hope that in future psyche will remain for you a pleasant place for publication so that we may have more of your work.

(Casement 1989, p. 29)

Berlin plaque

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References

The following account is an extract from an article I contributed to the 2013 IAAP Newsletter on the activities of a working group, Analytical Psychology and History, set up by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Analytische Psychologie (DGAP). This group installs plaques on buildings in Berlin lived in by Jewish analysts who had to flee the city in the 1930s to escape Nazi persecution. Three plaques have already been put in place for Erich Neumann (2007), Sabina Spielrein (2008), and Ernst Bernhard (2009).

A plaque commemorating Gerhard Adler was installed at 23 Münchenerstrasse in the Schöneberg district of Berlin on 11th March 2012. This event was attended by Miriam Stone and Michael Adler, the daughter and son of the Adlers, along with other members of their family. Speeches were presented by Robert Wimmer, president of the DGAP, Jörg Rasche, past vice-president of the International Association for Analytical Psychology, Michael Lindner from the C.G. Jung Institute Berlin, and Ann Casement from London.

image

The wording on the plaque reads as follows:

In diesem Haus lebte von 1928–1933 Dr. phil. Gerhard Adler

Er wurde 1904 in Berlin geboren und starb 1988 in London. Gezwungen durch die nationalsozialistische Rassengesetzgebung emigrierte er 1936 nach London. Er wurde von C.G. Jung in der Analytischen Psychologie ausgebildet und erwarb sich groβe Verdientse um ein symbolisches Verständnis der Psyche.

Von 1971–1977 war er Präsident der International Association for Analytical Psychology (IAAP). Sponsorin: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Analytische Psychologie (DGAP)

English translation:

Gerhard Adler Dr. phil. Lived in this house from 1928–1933.

Born in Berlin in 1904 he died in London in 1988. He was forced by the National Socialist racial laws to emigrate to London in 1936. He was qualified in Analytical Psychology by C.G. Jung and rendered outstanding service to a symbolic understanding of the psyche.

From 1971–1977 he was President of the International Association for Analytical Psychology (IAAP).

Sponsors: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Analytische Psychologie (DGAP)

By a remarkable coincidence, an exibit of the work of the artist and fashion illustrator of 1920s Berlin, Dodo (Dörte Clara Wolff), Adler's second wife, opened on 1st March 2012 at the Kunstbibliothek in Berlin's Staatliche Museum. Dodo was in analysis with Toni Wolff in Zürich in 1933, at the same time that Gerhard Adler was in analysis with Jung and working at the Zürich Burghölzli Hospital.The catalogue for the Dodo exhibit is a treasure trove of fascinating material, including the fact that Dodo attended Gerhard's funeral in London in January 1989 where she ‘felt that she herself was his true widow’ (Dodo 2012, p. 191).

When the Adler family and I returned from Berlin after the plaque ceremony, I received an email from Michael Adler about his experience there where he said the following: ‘I was very touched and the whole trip gave me a real feel for my German roots’.

1988

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References

I took my analytical training at the Association of Jungian Analysts (AJA), founded by Gerhard and Hella Adler, along with other colleagues in the 1970s. By 1988, it became increasingly evident that the bouts of ill-health suffered by Gerhard were taking their toll. On the 27th March 1988, I was invited to have lunch with the Adlers in the course of which they informed me they wanted to discuss two important matters. As a preliminary to raising the first one, they expressed their concerns at some length about the way things were developing at AJA. This was followed by their wish that I consider taking on the role of Honorary Life President of AJA when the time came that Gerhard felt he could no longer fulfil that role. They spelt out the reasons why they had decided I was the person best suited to take on this role, the main reason, according to Gerhard, being charisma; Hella's view, on the other hand, was that integrity was more important. I did not need to think about this and saw it for what it was, that is, an attempt to manipulate me into taking on a puppet role with the strings being pulled by the Adlers. I was adamant that I would not consider doing so.

The second matter to be discussed at lunch that day was their request that I should write a chapter on Gerhard for an Italian book to be published by Bompiani, the publishers of Alberto Moravia and Umberto Eco. The book, Psicologia Analitica Contemporanea, was being put together by Aldo Carotenuto on well-known figures in the Jungian world that included Ernst Bernhard, Hans Dieckmann, Edward Edinger, Michael Fordham, Adolf Guggenbühl-Craig, James Hillman, C.A. Meier and Erich Neumann. I gladly agreed to this. Gerhard handed over to me several items, including the two Statements above, and I conducted a couple of interviews with him. In the course of these, I found him quite difficult to deal with as his health was deteriorating and there were moments of irascibility at what he experienced as my intrusion into personal matters. In the end, the venture turned out quite well, during the course of which there was some correspondence between Carotenuto and myself, and the chapter was duly completed and sent to him. This was timely as Gerhard died on the 23rd December 1988. The obituary I wrote on him appeared in a January edition of The Independent newspaper.

Concluding remarks

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References

In my view, Gerhard Adler had, both personally and professionally, insufficiently resolved his idealizing transference to Jung, which seems to have been the case with many first-generation Jungians. Adler's determination to preserve Jung's ideas in the form handed down by Jung himself led to the destructive splits that occurred in the UK in the seventies and eighties. He and Hella talked about their experience of being with Jung in Zürich in the most idealizing terms and may have been trying to recreate the group around Jung. On the other hand, it is worth noting that Adler was dismissive of ‘orthodox’ Jungians biased against Freud (although he had only a negative view of Klein). According to him, it was as heroic for Freud to delve into his dream world as it was for Jung to expose himself to the power of the archetypal or supra-personal forces in the psyche.

When I first encountered the Adlers at the London Analytical Psychology Club in the sixties, they were a charismatic couple who bore the mantle of having worked closely with Jung. This kind of charisma needs to be grounded in a cooperative work group informed by diversity where its power can be distilled, sublimated and refined; as the founding couple of a small familial group it can serve to literalize and imprint the notion of ‘the couple’ as opposed to being processed alchemically. Bionian thinking points to ‘the subsequent phantasy that the pair will produce a messiah who will ultimately deliver the group from its travail’ (Grotstein 2007, p. 191). Failing sublimation the result can lead to what Bion says about basic assumption groups in Experiences in Groups (1961), according to which mental activity can become stabilized at a level that is banal, dogmatic, and painless resulting in widespread stagnation and the arrest of creative development.

A large number of training candidates at AJA had analysis with Hella and supervision with Gerhard or the other way round—modelled no doubt on their experience in Zürich where people had analysis with Jung and/or Toni Wolff. My training analysis with Hella afforded deep psychological insights marred by boundary violations where organizational problems or issues to do with people in analysis with her were often brought into sessions. Boundaries were maintained in my training supervision with Gerhard though, given his claim to hold the middle ground between the so-called ‘reductive’ and ‘synthetic’ approaches, it was surprisingly psychoanalytic-lite. This lack was, instead, filled by the supervision of my work in psychiatry from the late seventies by a member of The British Psycho-Analytical Society that served to enrich my Jungian orientation through integrating mainstream psychoanalytic theory and practice.

Personal recollections

In the speech I made at the ceremony for the plaque erected in Berlin to commemorate Gerhard Adler, I listed some of the qualities I associated with him. I would add here a quote sent to me by his Rabbi, David Freeman.

Gerhard was in the end a deeply committed Jew who had that as primary identity. He was a Jewish survivor and never forgot it even though during his lifetime he was by no means an observant Jew. That Jewish ritual be observed to the letter upon his death was paramount for him, and the many confidential ‘conversations’ he had with me as his Rabbi revealed what I would call a deep Jewish soul.

(Personal communication, 17th October 2013)

Rabbi Freeman officiated at Gerhard's memorial service on Friday 13th January 1989 at the Golder's Green Crematorium in North London.

In addition, he was a highly intelligent, cultured man, a first-class bridge player, and a connoisseur of wine. I knew from personal contact with Gerhard how important his family was to him, which is confirmed by his daughter Miriam: ‘He adored his grandchildren and they would sometimes spend an afternoon with him when they were little and he would take them to a Polish cake shop to buy poppy seed cake’ (personal communication, 6th June 2013).

Gerhard had a great love of the arts—his favourite painters being Rembrandt, Velasquez and Cézanne. His daughter Miriam recalls, ‘he took up painting which was very important to him and he would spend all day sometimes working on a still life or landscape from their cottage in Oxfordshire’ (personal communication, ibid.). Among the writers he most appreciated were Goethe, ‘the last man with an all-embracing knowledge of everything’ (Gerhard Adler, personal communication 7th May 1988); and Kafka, for his ‘incredibly deep understanding of the human tragedy’ (ibid.). Music was important to him and he hardly spent an evening without listening to the works of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, commending the latter for his ‘profound humanity’ (ibid.). These last words might stand as Gerhard's own epitaph as I recall him saying the greatest goal in life is to be human.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractTRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
  3. Preamble
  4. ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate” and sychronicity'
  5. Gerhard Adler in the United Kingdom
  6. A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom
  7. Institutionalizing of analytical psychology in the UK
  8. The first split
  9. The SAP/AJA split
  10. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 5th July ’
  11. Association of Jungian Analysts (Alternative Training)
  12. Gerhard Adler's ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’
  13. The UK Umbrella Group
  14. The aftermath of splits
  15. Gerhard Adler's publications
  16. Berlin plaque
  17. 1988
  18. Concluding remarks
  19. A last comment from Jung
  20. Acknowledgements
  21. References
  • Adler, G. (1961). The Living Symbol: A Case Study in the Process of Individuation. New York: Bollingen Foundation.
  • Adler, G. (1966). Studies in Analytical Psychology. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
  • Adler, G. (1975a). ‘C.G. Jung in a changing civilization’. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 20, 97101.
  • Adler, G. (1975b). ‘Statement of 5th July 1975’. Private collection of Ann Casement.
  • Adler, G. (1979). Dynamics of the Self. London: Coventure.
  • Adler, G. (1983). ‘Statement of 4th December 1983’. Private collection of Ann Casement.
  • Adler, G. (1988). Personal communications.
  • Adler, G. (1991). ‘Reflections on “chance”, “fate”, and synchronicity’. In The Shaman from Elko: Papers in Honor of Joseph L. Henderson on His Seventy-fifth Birthday, ed. G. Hill. Boston: Sigo Press.
  • Adler, G. (Ed.) (1973). C.G. Jung Letters. Volume 1. In collaboration with Aniela Jaffé. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Adler, G. (Ed.) (1976). C.G. Jung Letters. Volume 2. In collaboration with Aniela Jaffé. London: Routledge& Kegan Paul.
  • Astor, J. (2007). ‘Fordham, feeling, and countertransference: reflections on defences of the self’. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 52, 2, 185200.
  • Baynes, P. (1949). Mythology of the Soul. London: Methuen.
  • Bion, W.R. (1961). Experiences in Groups. London: Tavistock.
  • Casement, A. (1989). ‘Gerhard Adler e il simbolo vivente’. In Psicologia Analitica Contemporanea, ed. C. Trombetta. Milano: StudiBompiani.
  • Casement, A. (1995). ‘A brief history of Jungian splits in the United Kingdom’. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 40, 3.
  • Casement, A. (2007). Who Owns Jung? London: Karnac Books.
  • di Lampedusa, G.T. (1958). The Leopard. London: Vintage Books.
  • Doorley, D. (2009). Obituary on Hella Adler. Website for the Association of Jungian Analysts.
  • Fordham, M. Interview 4 September 1994.
  • Freeman, Rabbi David. Personal communication 17th October 2013.
  • Grotstein, J. (2007). A Beam of Intense Darkness: Wilfred Bion's Legacy to Psychoanalysis. London: Karnac Books.
  • IAAP Newsletter 2013.
  • Jung, C.G. (1953). Psychology and Alchemy. CW 12.
  • Kirsch, T. (1976). Letter to G. Adler, June 1958. C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 2. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
  • King, P., Steiner, R. (Eds.) (1991). The Freud-Klein Controversies 1941–45. London & New York: Tavistock/Routledge.
  • Kirsch, T. (2000). The Jungians: A Comparative and Historical Perspective. London & Philadelphia: Routledge.
  • Kirsch, T. (June and October 2013). Personal communications.
  • Krümmer, C.G. (2012). Dodo: Leben und Werk. Berlin: Hatje Cantz.
  • Lammers, A.C. (Ed.) [2011]. The Jung-Kirsch Letters: The Correspondence of C.G. Jung and James Kirsch. Hove, East Sussex: Routledge.
  • Shamdasani, S. (2007). ‘The incomplete works of Jung’ In Who Owns Jung? Ed. A. Casement. London: Karnac Books.
  • The World Within. DVD (1990). A Bosustow Video Production for the C.G. Jung Institute of Los Angeles.