Thoughts on Psyche at Work
Implications of Jungian analysis for social groups
- / -
Psyche at Work is a new book (Wilmette IL, Chiron, 1992), edited by
Murray Stein and John Hollwitz, that aims to indicate the relevance of Jungian
analytical psychology to issues of organizational development, notably at the
workplace. This note endeavours to highlight, in the light of the contents of
the book, where new challenges lie. Thus despite full support for what the book
achieves, the concern in this note is with the challenges for analytical psychology
beyond those on which it focuses there. As part of a dialogue, these points
are strongly made without contextual niceties -- and for that apologies may
1. The book acknowledges that Jungian psychology has traditionally concerned
itself with the individual. Two reasons are given:
- Jung's opposition: Jung was known for his antipathy to groups and organizations.
It was his wish that the C G Jung Institute, if it were to exist, should be
"as disorganized as possible" (Auger, p. 40) He argued that "Large
political and social organizations must not be ends in themselves, but merely
temporary expedients." Apparently Jung's crucial concern was that "organizations
are destructive to individuals". The primacy of the individual is almost
holy writ to Jungians (Auger, p. 44). Whilst such views carry truths, in such
a simplistic form they distort the challenges and opportunities of a complex
society -- especially for those non-western cultures for which the individual
is secondary to community. If they are maintained as truths by the discipline
of analytical psychology, that would suffice to establish its current irrelevance
to the problems that many face.
- Introverted analysts: The book reports research that 85 percent of Jungian
analysts "are introverts who find it difficult or unrewarding to relate
to the world of organizations" (Auger, p. 50).
It is a matter for some wonder that a discipline that is so intensely
self-aware should allow itself to be constrained by a particular set of biases
for so long. This is especially the case when the discipline is professionally
concerned with such biases and their consequences in the processes of
psychotherapy. From the point of view of organization theory, it might even be
asked whether the kinship group, nuclear family, or the analyst/analysand
couple, did not also constitute organizations -- to which the same opprobrium
should therefore be attached.
2. For outsiders, it remains a further matter of wonder that the relationships
between the various psychological and psychotherapeutic disciplines should be
so strained -- even hostile. Again there is concern that the skills of such
disciplines are not used more effectively to analyze these tensions and shift
their relationships to a higher level. Failure to do so makes it only too easy
for outsiders to reject the use of any of these insights in other areas, and
notably those relating to the collective. Again one wonders whether, as with
all disciplines, sufficient attention has been given to the nature of the shadow
of analytical psychology and the challenge that it represents for the evolution
of that discipline.
3. In this period when all insight frameworks have been challenged and are
considered wanting (at least by their competitors), there is a real obstacle to
acceptance of insights from any particular framework -- especially if it is
labelled (if only for convenience) by a particular person's name. It is
interesting that Jungian thinking is best known under that label. The label
"analytical psychology" does not convey the richness with which it is
associated. For outsiders there is much confusion and overlapping of images
between the different psychologies and psychotherapies. How does analytical
differ from depth psychology? It is unfortunate, for example, that the
International Association for Analytical Psychology should be known under the
same initials as the International Association for Applied Psychology. For a
school of thought renowned for its concern with integration, it is regrettable
that its formal title should focus on "analytical". Much of the
intellectual tragedy of the times is due to the unfortunate success of "analysis"
unmatched by any corresponding insights into integration and synthesis.
Analytical psychology has many such integrative insights which it effectively
hides under an analytical barrel. In organizational terms it would be described
as having an "image" problem -- which paradoxically is to be expected
because of its specialist interest in images.
4. Unfortunately few of the insights from the discipline have been used to
heal the relationships between the psychotherapeutic disciplines or within
disciplines ("one only needs to observe how organizations of Jungian
analysts are operated to realize how greatly organizational development could
make positive contributions to them" Auger, p. 50). The status quo appears
to suit most of those involved. But there is a heightened level of impatience
in the wider world.
5. The book notes that there have been previous attempts to apply such Jungian
approaches to group dynamics and processes, to world politics and to the arts
"to varying degrees of success". The focus here is on organizational
development. However some authors note that organizational development (OD)
was itself born in rather conservative times. It has already been abandoned
by some in favour of organizational transformation (OT). Whilst the shift from
the individual to the organization is much to be welcomed, it is important to
recognize that the challenges of the times have also shifted. Whilst the development
of organizations remain of interest for all the reasons indicated in the book,
the tragedy is that this avoids the locus of real difficulties in improving
6. The principal argument in this note is that the locus of difficulty is no
longer within organizations, it is now between organizations.
Considerable expertise has been applied to improving the functioning of
individual organizations. Whilst there may be much scope for improvement, it is
useful to assess whether this is an appropriate allocation of resources or
simply an allocation of effort where resources are often available. What
resources are available to respond to the needs of groups of organizations torn
apart by a range of dynamics? Obvious examples are the "greens",
peace movement organizations, civil rights groups, religious/spiritual groups,
etc. Token collaboration is now being used to disguise the limited ability to
deal with mutual suspicion and hostility. The desperate pursuit of
"consensus" and "universal" values, and the radical
rejection of any "negativity" or "criticism", signals the
emergence of a new form of fundamentalism that is terrified of its own shadow.
Only "equality" is accepted, with any "differences" being
tolerable only as an unfortunate precursor of "agreement". Even in
hierarchical structures only positive reporting is acceptable if career advancement
is to be ensured.
7. Both analytical psychology and OD give a focal role to the intervening
expert. This is fine in situations where such a relationship can be
successfully contracted. In individual therapy the client contracts into the
process. In organizational "therapy", the OD consultant usually
negotiates a contract with the "boss", whether the CEO or a
department head. The emerging challenge in society is however the need for
integrative insights in situations where no one is authorized or empowered to
position the therapeutic catalyst so that he/she can control (or even
facilitate) the process. At the individual level this is best seen in the
challenge faced by a community development worker in a community in which
he/she is given no power but nevertheless has to act as an integrative catalyst
in bringing people together more constructively. At the collective level this
is seen in the role of the mediator/negotiator in situations where that role
cannot be imposed on the opposing groups (as was done by the US in the current
Middle East peace negotiations). And in the case of the psychotherapeutic
disciplines, this is most dramatically seen in the improbability of any one
person being accepted as the mediating figure to heal the relationships between
those disciplines (or the organizations representing them).
8. In the above sense many arguments in the book contrasting individual and
organizational situations need to be shifted to apply to sets of organizations.
Much of what is stated in terms of projections of the individual onto single
organizations also applies with a set or network of organizations. In a sense a
set of organizations is a superordinate organization waiting to be born -- a
primodial state of institutional chaos.
9. "How can organizations acknowledge their unconscious and do
something about it? Where are their creative sources? What are the
possibilities for transformation in the structures of traditional
organizations...?" These questions apply as much to a set of organizations
in sub-optimal relationship. Interventions in organizational sets should be
similar to those with individuals. The book makes allusions to larger social
groupings, including world politics. It is questionable whether breakthroughs
can be sought at this level -- as one might have hoped in the case of the
relations between nation states. Intergovernmental systems are especially
resistant to the single expert or group of experts, and especially when they
are flying a particular conceptual flag. However it would be a mistake for any
group with relevant insights to expect that when things get bad enough those in
power will come knocking at their door. By the time it gets that bad, it is
effectively impossible for the value of the expertise to be sufficiently widely
recognized for any viable form of therapeutic process to be initiated.
10. Let us call a sub-optimal set of organizations a network, even a
"flabby" network where structural integrity of any kind is
questionable. Stein notes: "One of the essential functions of a good
organization is to contain the spirit of the organization's unconscious and to
keep it from devouring its members" (p. 4). He notes that "shadow
projections can be caught, in envy reactions and rivalries. One envies someone
who has some sort of perceived access to the self, perhaps in the form of
creative spirit or a privileged position vis-a-vis the power throttle in the
organization" (p. 7). Also: "if your organization envies another, it
is projecting the collective, or organizational self onto the other organization"
(p. 8). But: "If an organization is well put together, it will have the
capacity to contain the shadow and to work with this unsavory material as it
arises...Competition and rivalry, even envy, are deadly and corrosive only if
they are rampant and unmanaged: contained, they promise to yield enormous
benefits" (p. 8-9).
11. What then is the structure to contain the spirit of the network? If, as
Stein notes, the "organization uses its individual members to act out
roles as they become activated in the group's collective unconscious" (p.
10) -- can the same be said of a network's use of its member organizations? Can
the same be said of the network of psychotherapeutic organizations?
12. Hollwitz develops the question as to whether an organization has a
"personality" (p. 29). As he notes, if an organization has a
collective personality, then it is likely that it has archetypal structure that
can be revealed in its imagination -- its symbols, narratives and rituals. Can
the same not be asked of a network, even one distinguished by a high level of
rivalry and antipathy? It is typical of any multicultural network that, as
Hollwitz notes, what passes for acceptable practice in one culture becomes
shadow in another (p. 31). What of the case with the network of psychotherapeutic
13. For Auger: "An organization's hierarchy may be analogous to
subpersonalities, and sometimes, complexes of an individual" (p. 42). This
should be even truer of a network. What subpersonality does depth psychology
represent in contrast to those of Freudian inspiration?
14. One of the characteristics of a network is the rejection of hierarchy
and any privileged centre or leadership. In this sense it corresponds to a
rejection of the patriarchal values so characteristic of traditional organizations.
One may however argue whether many networks benefit from matriarchal values or
suffer from an excess of them. The book follows a fashion in rejecting
patriarchal values and there is a need to recognize their limitations -- but
what of the special relationship to Jung? Unfortunately there is little
recognition of the limitations of matriarchal values -- except in the
insightful phrase of the "devouring mother". Networks as
proto-organizations may suffer from excessive matriarchality. How is the divine
marriage between hierarchies and networks to be brought about to ensure an
appropriate and fruitful balance?
15. Auger refers to the importance of the hero (for analytical psychology)
and of leadership (for organizational development). Thus "leadership is
crucial in any organization. The leader's role often is to exercise power to
keep the organization's subsystems...in balance" (p. 44). For both
disciplines strangely, absence of "leadership" tends to be an
anathema. In a sub-optimal network leadership functions are effectively
distributed, even if only chaotically and spastically active. The issue within
a disorganized network of somewhat responsible organizations is not how to
engender "a leader" but rather how to distribute the leadership
function amongst responsible elements most appropriately. In this sense the
focus on "a leader" is simplistic in relation to the larger
16. For Lepper: "Departments that perceive each other as enemies across
demarcation lines, rather than a flexible boundary, will have deep effects on
the communication of important information -- and quality control" (p.
88). Once established, a "psychoid level of organization will quickly
represent itself in institutional forms. Subgroups form, acquire a history and
culture of their own, and before long take on the impenetrable and seemingly
eternal forms that we call 'political reality'" (p. 89). Schisms are
characteristic of most disciplines and belief systems. To what extent do such
remarks apply to the psychotherapeutic disciplines, especially those
originating with Freud?
17. Colman takes as his subject "collective development per se,
including broadening the concept of individuation, currently only applied to
individuals, to include individuation in the collective as well" (p. 92).
It is interesting that he explores two techniques (p. 115) which others have
attempted for similar reasons. These include:
(a) some form of publication to carry virtually unedited reflections from
members. When such a publication was first advocated to a leader of the Global
Forum at the Earth Summit, the expressed concern was that the "unconscious"
of the group would be given a vehicle. It has been used in a number of large
conferences as a vehicle for unvoiceable concerns.
(b) forming a study group whose task is to study the collective unconscious
of the organization. This is a special form of monitoring from which many
groups or gatherings of groups can benefit.
It is useful to speculate on an adaptation of conference technology to permit
participants to use the interpretation channels to receive a psychoanalytical
commentary from a monitoring group -- possibly using several channels for
"competing" schools of thought. Such technology could also be used to
collect publicly unvoiceable feedback.
18. Olson notes:
"Jung defined ego as the center of consciousness, but stressed that
the ego is limited, incomplete, and less than the whole personality. The ego
maintains the tensions of opposities until the psyche can manifest the transcendent
function. The ego then surrenders to a greater authority: the ordering principle
of the personality that emphasizes both the conscious and the unconscious
which Jung called the Self. If one's ego cannot maintain the tension and one
makes a one-sided choice between two foces, the opposing force will become
even stronger -- and the tension will build again. At the group level...if
the tension of the polarities is held between aspects which are in the unconscious
of the group members, the group can shift to a new level of understanding
of its purpose and its way of operating" (p. 161).
In the case of a sub-optimal network of organizations, these points chart very
interesting possibilities. For indeed, many such networks are subject to polarizing
dynamics, and there is often aspiration for resolution of such conflicts at
a higher level. Tensegrity structures provide a very interesting model for redistribution
of tensions through polarizing forces in order to engender a new spherical structural
form -- whose centre is empty. The need for a central organizing unit or leader,
like an ego, represents an uncompleted phase in development of any such network
into a state of tensional integrity.
19. Olson describes a group process in which individuals are asked
"what gift do they bring to the team" (p. 166). What is required is a
similar process with organizational representatives: "what gift does their
organization, profession, or discipline bring to the network". As Olson
notes: "The symbolism of gift giving helped the members release latent
positive feelings about each person's Self and unexpressed feelings about being
a part of the new team (the group Self)" (p. 166). One might ask whether
this has ever been done with a group of representatives of different approaches
to psychotherapy -- and if not, why not? Is there not a larger "team"
to be recognized -- as in most domains torn by mutual suspicion and antipathy?
20. Olson also describes (p. 166) use of a personality inventory to enable
members of a group to recognize types to which they belong, then matching
people of similar and different types to experience the nature of the tensions
and complementarities between them. Again there is a case for using such an
approach to heal a network of organizations. One might speculate, for example,
that therapists of different schools would tend to feel greater affinity for
particular types rather than for others. Just as a high proportion of Jungian
therapists are introverted, many may be primarily characterized by particular
type categories, in contrast to those of other therapeutic disciplines. To what
extent then does the pattern of Myers-Briggs categories map the different
orientations in psychotherapy (or even the success of a given therapist/client
bond)? The merit of such a perspective is that the map legitimates the
complementarity between different therapeutic orientations -- recognizing the
tensions that must necessarily exist between them. It also clarifies the way
that those of one approach may judge another to be superficial, or cold, etc.
21. Perlman explores the issues of patriarchal vs matriarchal values
governing group functioning. Analysts tend to focus on the matriarchal function
of the group whereas OD specialists stress the patriarchal values which are
proving increasingly ill-adapted to the times. The latter view has also been
challenged by feminists: "The patriarchal developmental litanty intones
the celebration of separation, autonomy, and individuation, but is supported by
the invisible but essential context of connection, protected by the feminine
recognition of the ongoing importance of relationship in the male life
cycle" (Gilligan). The difficulty in such discussions is that both sides
are remarkably skilled in endeavouring to highlight the primacy of their
particular end of the polarity, possibly with condescending recognition of the
(secondary) merit of the other.
22. Perlman concludes: "To apply the ideas developed in this paper to
group life in organizations requires a shift from the patriarchal perspective"
(p. 191). But does this mean there should simply be a shift over to the matriarchal
perspective as she seems to imply:
"The creative potential in a group cannot be released unless group members
are equally empowered in a collaborative way, until the process is recognized,
even embraced, as necessarily chaotic, messy, and painful, and unless the
group members each take responsibility for maintaining, to the greatest extent
possible, the containing presence of the good mother." (p. 191)
Although a radical feminist perspective is important to correct the excesses
of the male chauvinist perspective, what is required is a dynamic, magical balance
between the opposites. In fact, for healthy functioning of the group, each member
should be able to hold all variants of both male and female archetypes, not
just "mother" or "father".
23. More fundamentally, the issue is that of bringing about some form of divine
marriage. And here the challenge is how to express this in a form which does
honour to both and is not a cunning put down of the other. There are traps therefore
in interpreting Perlman's richly significant statement that:
"Each participant becomes a microcosm of the group, containing the archetypal
mother and child within, acting out those roles, and others, in a changing
and fluid manner. Each participant takes responsibility for leading and following,
for sustaining the presence of the archetypal good mother who neither abandons
nor intrudes. Then individual creativity and group creativity intermingle
as group members attend to the group's process within themselves, with each
other and the group as a whole. The child which then may emerge from the unconscious
lpsychic life of the group carries the possibility of new life, the creative
new approach to the group's task, as well as those archetypal energies that
renew the individuals, the group, and the organization of which the group
is a part." (p. 191).
One trap is assuming that simply by increasing matriarchal values a divine
marriage necessarily results -- somewhat following the Mediterranean assumption
that if a man and woman are alone in the same room they necessarily have intercourse!
Bringing about a divine marriage is somewhat more complicated. Aspiration to
integration, wholeness and transcendence may be necessary conditions, but they
are not sufficient.
24. It is as yet quite unclear what organizational form can carry this
transcendent level of complexity. Messiness, for example, is no guarantee of a
fruitful marriage -- although some tolerance of it is no doubt necessary in an
increasingly chaotic environment. Again the tensegrity structure is very
suggestive of ways in which tensions could be distributed to provide
"tensional integrity" -- and is useful in highlighting the
difficulties of putting together, and comprehending, such a dynamic structure
-- in contrast to hierarchies and networks. The mysterious dynamics of a divine
marriage are above all a challenge to comprehension through dualistic thinking.
Intellectually it may appear simple but, as an art form in process, it is
another matter. And perhaps, of such a marriages at the group level, it may be
even more true that, as Stein says: "Precisely because we need them in
order to become ourselves and to become whole, human organizations are fraught
with danger and have the power to overwhelm and destroy us" (Stein, p. 1)
25. A final comment is appropriate about the assumption apparently
prevailing amongst both OD consultants and psychotherapists concerning their
untarnished innocence in any professional relationship (and despite surveys of
unprofessional conduct). Auger, for example, states: "The goal of the
analytical psychologist is to help analysands move toward wholeness: to become
the full and unique individuals they are" (p.45). This may indeed be the
declared goal, it may be the conscious goal, but it is not necessarily the
unconscious goal. Indeed the distinction between a good therapist and a less
good therapist (and such distinctions are of prime professional concern) is the
extent to which the therapist's unconscious goal is as disinterested as that
statement implies. How well has the therapist/consultant integrated his/her
shadow nature? In a network situation, groups are less prepared to accept any
type of consultant on the basis of declared objectives -- especially across
cultural boundaries that shift the pattern of shadows. But how can the
consultant prove his/her appropriateness to the task? This is not a question of
objectivity but of establishing a relationship through some form of drama that
is difficult to plan or orchestrate.
26. If the limitations of the single consultant/therapist can be acknowledged,
is it not possible to envisage some kind of team of such "network therapists"
designed so that the strengths and weaknesses of each are compensated within
the team? In such a situation it is not necessary that each team member should
have integrated his/her shadow. What is necessary is that each shadow element
should be openly acknowledged (at least by others), and that one or more other
members should be competent in containing its effects on the group. Rather than
the hyperbole with which consultants currently present themselves as "white
knights", there is a need for a balanced presentation of the strengths
and weaknesses of each team member. In dialogue with a "client" network
this level of honesty could evoke the need for a corresponding assessment amongst
the network member bodies. As with an individual analyst, the "map"
of checks and balances embodied by the "therapist network", then serves
as a kind of catalytic template or scaffolding with which the client network
can enter into resonance -- hopefully to be entrained into a healthier self-sustaining
- Transcending duality through tensional integrity: from systems-versus-networks
to tensegrity organization. Transnational Associations, 30, 1978, pp.
- Groupware Configurations of Challenge and Harmony: an alternative approach
to alternative organization. Transnational Associations, 31, 1979, 10,
pp. 467-475 [text]
- Implementing Principles by Balancing Configurations of Functions: a tensegrity
organization approach. Transnational Associations, 31, 1979, 12, pp. 587-591
- From Networking to Tensegrity Organization. Brussels, Union of International
Associations, 1984 [text]
- Policy Alternation for Development. Brussels,
Union of International Associations, 1984. [text]
- Comprehension of Appropriateness. Brussels, Union of International Associations,
- Configuring Globally and Contending Locally:
shaping the global network of global bargains by decoding and mapping Earth
Summit inter-sectoral issues. Brussels, Union of International Associations,