What do you think?
Rate this book
The Psychoanalytic Years
Between the years 1906 and 1912, Jung practiced as a psychoanalyst, and his association with Freud was very close. Though their personal relationship became strained after the publication of Jung's book, Wandlungen und Symbole der Libido (1911-12), Jung continued to serve as president of the International Psychoanalytic Association until 1914. The present volume covers the period of Jung's close and enthusiastic collaboration with Freud and includes one of Jung's famous studies in word association which demonstrates Freud's influence even before they were working together.
Originally published in 1975.
The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.
Originally published in 1975.
The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.
190 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1975
26 people want to read
About the author
C.G. Jung
1,881 books11.5k followersCarl Gustav Jung (/jʊŋ/; German: [ˈkarl ˈɡʊstaf jʊŋ]), often referred to as C. G. Jung, was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychotherapist who founded analytical psychology. Jung proposed and developed the concepts of extraversion and introversion; archetypes, and the collective unconscious. His work has been influential in psychiatry and in the study of religion, philosophy, archeology, anthropology, literature, and related fields. He was a prolific writer, many of whose works were not published until after his death.
The central concept of analytical psychology is individuation—the psychological process of integrating the opposites, including the conscious with the unconscious, while still maintaining their relative autonomy. Jung considered individuation to be the central process of human development.
Jung created some of the best known psychological concepts, including the archetype, the collective unconscious, the complex, and synchronicity. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a popular psychometric instrument, has been developed from Jung's theory of psychological types.
Though he was a practising clinician and considered himself to be a scientist, much of his life's work was spent exploring tangential areas such as Eastern and Western philosophy, alchemy, astrology, and sociology, as well as literature and the arts. Jung's interest in philosophy and the occult led many to view him as a mystic, although his ambition was to be seen as a man of science. His influence on popular psychology, the "psychologization of religion", spirituality and the New Age movement has been immense.
The central concept of analytical psychology is individuation—the psychological process of integrating the opposites, including the conscious with the unconscious, while still maintaining their relative autonomy. Jung considered individuation to be the central process of human development.
Jung created some of the best known psychological concepts, including the archetype, the collective unconscious, the complex, and synchronicity. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a popular psychometric instrument, has been developed from Jung's theory of psychological types.
Though he was a practising clinician and considered himself to be a scientist, much of his life's work was spent exploring tangential areas such as Eastern and Western philosophy, alchemy, astrology, and sociology, as well as literature and the arts. Jung's interest in philosophy and the occult led many to view him as a mystic, although his ambition was to be seen as a man of science. His influence on popular psychology, the "psychologization of religion", spirituality and the New Age movement has been immense.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 23, 2025
JUNG'S EARLY, PRO-FREUDIAN ESSAYS
The Editorial Note to this 1974 book explains, “For some half-dozen years, Jung was to be counted as Freud’s leading disciple and, indeed, as the leading psychoanalyst after Freud. The present collection contains the more significant of Jung’s shorter writings of that time which demonstrate his position as a Freudian. Before Jung had met Freud, in 1907, he had earned a name in European psychiatry as the leader of experiments with the word-association tests at Burghölzli Mental Hospital in Zurich. In one of his studies he used psychoanalysis as a method of treatment as well as using psychoanalytic principles in evaluating the test data… In 1910, he was elected first president of the International Psychoanalytic Association (serving until 1914, nearly two years after his break with Freud).”
Jung wrote in a 1906 paper, “For psychoanalysis the patient’s mental condition is important, but still more important is the mental condition of the doctor. Here probably lies the secret of why Freud’s psychoanalysis is disregarded by the world of science. He who approaches a case with anything but absolute conviction is soon lost in the snares and traps laid by the complex of hysterical illness at whatever point he hopes to take hold of it. One has to know from the very beginning that everything in the hysteric is trying to prevent an exploration of the complex.” (Pg.. 19)
He argues, “It is rather different in the case of physical traumata and hysterias about insurance money. Here, where the trauma and the highly affective prospect of money coincide, an emotional situation arises which makes the outbreak of a specific form of hysteria appear at least very plausible. It is possible that Freud’s view is not valid in these cases. For lack of other experiences I incline to this opinion. But if we want to be absolutely fair and absolutely scientific, we would certainly have to show first that a sexual constellation really never did pave the way for the hysteria, i.e., that nothing of this sort comes out under analysis. At any rate the allegation of traumatic hysteria proves, at best, only that not all cases of hysteria have a sexual root. But this does not controvert Freud’s basis proposition…” (Pg. 35)
He responds to some of his own critics, “Apart from the fact that it is incumbent on a critic to demonstrate his thorough knowledge of the method, we also lack the proof that the method is auto-suggestion. In earlier writings I have already pointed out that the association experiment devised by me gives the same results in principle, and that psychoanalysis is really no different from [a word-association] experiment…” (Pg. 36-37)
He recounts, “When I first read Freud’s writings it was the same with me as with everybody else: I could only strew the pages with question marks. And it will be like that for everyone who reads the account of my association experiments for the first time. Luckily, however, anyone who wants to can repeat them, and so experience for himself what he did not believe before. Unfortunately this is not true of psychoanalysis, since it presupposes an unusual combination of specialized knowledge and psychological routine which not everyone possesses, but which can, to a certain extent, be learnt.” (Pg. 38)
He summarizes, “(1) It has never yet been proved that Freud’s theory of hysteria is erroneous in all cases. (2) This proof can, logically be supplied only by one who practices the psychoanalytic method. (3) It has not been proved that psychoanalysis gives other results than those obtained by Freud. (4) It has not been proved that psychoanalysis is based on false principles and is altogether unsuitable for an understanding of hysterical symptoms.” (Pg. 39)
He asserts, “It needs to be repeated again and again that practical and theoretical understanding of psychoanalysis is a function of analytical self-knowledge. Where self-knowledge fails, psychoanalysis cannot flourish. This is a paradox only so long as people think they know themselves. Any who does not think that?” (Pg. 70)
He says of a critic or one of his analyses of a patient’s dream, “It will no doubt be objected that I am reading my own corrupt fantasies into the dream, as is customary with the Freudian school. Perhaps my esteemed colleague… will be indignant at my attributing such impure thoughts to his patient, or… of me to draw such a far-reaching conclusion from these scanty hints. I am well aware that this conclusion, seen from the standpoint of yesterday’s science, looks almost frivolous. But hundreds of parallel experiences have shown me that the above data are really quite sufficient to warrant my conclusion, and with a certainty that meets the most rigorous requirements. Those who have no experience of psychoanalysis can have no idea how very probable is the presence of an erotic wish and how extremely improbable is its absence… I therefore beg the reader: no moral indignation, please, but calm verification. This is what science is made with, and not with the howls of indignation, mockery, abuse, and threats, the weapons which German science use in arguing with us.” (Pg. 78)
In a 1910 paper ‘On the Criticism of Psychoanalysis,’ he argues, “It is a well-known fact to the psychoanalyst that laymen, even those with relatively little education, are able to understand the nature and rationale of psychoanalysis, without undue intellectual difficulty. It is the same with educated people… They can all understand the truths of psychoanalysis. They also understand very well why psychoanalysis cannot be expounded in the same convincing way as a mathematical proposition. Everyone … knows that a psychological proof must necessarily be different from a physical one… Under these circumstances we would expect our critics to study the neuroses and psychoses so thoroughly as we have done… and to put forward facts of an essentially different kind concerning their psychological determination. We have waited for this for more than ten years…
“In general, we must expect the most violent resistance from medical men and psychologists, chiefly because of scientific prejudices based on a different way of thinking to which they obstinately adhere. Our critics… commit the mistake of criticizing the psychoanalytic method as though it rested on a priori principles, whereas in reality it is purely empirical and totally lacking in any final theoretical framework.” (Pg. 86-87)
He notes, “If ever we are disposed to see some demonic power at work controlling mortal destiny, surely we see it here in these melancholy, silent tragedies working themselves out… in the sick souls of our neurotics… You cannot even maintain that these unhappy people are always neurotics or ‘degenerates.’ If we normal people examine our lives, we too perceive how a mighty hand guides us without fail to our destiny, and not always is this hand a kindly one. Often we call it the hand of God or of the devil… At all events it is felt as such, so that today in common speech … the source of any such destiny appears as a daemon, as a good or evil spirit.” (Pg. 107)
He suggests, “The essence of human psychology, precisely because so many different possible principles exist, can never be fully comprehended under any one of them, but only under the totality of individual aspects.” (Pg. 121)
This book will be of interest to those studying Jung’s early ‘Freudian psychoanalysis’ days.
The Editorial Note to this 1974 book explains, “For some half-dozen years, Jung was to be counted as Freud’s leading disciple and, indeed, as the leading psychoanalyst after Freud. The present collection contains the more significant of Jung’s shorter writings of that time which demonstrate his position as a Freudian. Before Jung had met Freud, in 1907, he had earned a name in European psychiatry as the leader of experiments with the word-association tests at Burghölzli Mental Hospital in Zurich. In one of his studies he used psychoanalysis as a method of treatment as well as using psychoanalytic principles in evaluating the test data… In 1910, he was elected first president of the International Psychoanalytic Association (serving until 1914, nearly two years after his break with Freud).”
Jung wrote in a 1906 paper, “For psychoanalysis the patient’s mental condition is important, but still more important is the mental condition of the doctor. Here probably lies the secret of why Freud’s psychoanalysis is disregarded by the world of science. He who approaches a case with anything but absolute conviction is soon lost in the snares and traps laid by the complex of hysterical illness at whatever point he hopes to take hold of it. One has to know from the very beginning that everything in the hysteric is trying to prevent an exploration of the complex.” (Pg.. 19)
He argues, “It is rather different in the case of physical traumata and hysterias about insurance money. Here, where the trauma and the highly affective prospect of money coincide, an emotional situation arises which makes the outbreak of a specific form of hysteria appear at least very plausible. It is possible that Freud’s view is not valid in these cases. For lack of other experiences I incline to this opinion. But if we want to be absolutely fair and absolutely scientific, we would certainly have to show first that a sexual constellation really never did pave the way for the hysteria, i.e., that nothing of this sort comes out under analysis. At any rate the allegation of traumatic hysteria proves, at best, only that not all cases of hysteria have a sexual root. But this does not controvert Freud’s basis proposition…” (Pg. 35)
He responds to some of his own critics, “Apart from the fact that it is incumbent on a critic to demonstrate his thorough knowledge of the method, we also lack the proof that the method is auto-suggestion. In earlier writings I have already pointed out that the association experiment devised by me gives the same results in principle, and that psychoanalysis is really no different from [a word-association] experiment…” (Pg. 36-37)
He recounts, “When I first read Freud’s writings it was the same with me as with everybody else: I could only strew the pages with question marks. And it will be like that for everyone who reads the account of my association experiments for the first time. Luckily, however, anyone who wants to can repeat them, and so experience for himself what he did not believe before. Unfortunately this is not true of psychoanalysis, since it presupposes an unusual combination of specialized knowledge and psychological routine which not everyone possesses, but which can, to a certain extent, be learnt.” (Pg. 38)
He summarizes, “(1) It has never yet been proved that Freud’s theory of hysteria is erroneous in all cases. (2) This proof can, logically be supplied only by one who practices the psychoanalytic method. (3) It has not been proved that psychoanalysis gives other results than those obtained by Freud. (4) It has not been proved that psychoanalysis is based on false principles and is altogether unsuitable for an understanding of hysterical symptoms.” (Pg. 39)
He asserts, “It needs to be repeated again and again that practical and theoretical understanding of psychoanalysis is a function of analytical self-knowledge. Where self-knowledge fails, psychoanalysis cannot flourish. This is a paradox only so long as people think they know themselves. Any who does not think that?” (Pg. 70)
He says of a critic or one of his analyses of a patient’s dream, “It will no doubt be objected that I am reading my own corrupt fantasies into the dream, as is customary with the Freudian school. Perhaps my esteemed colleague… will be indignant at my attributing such impure thoughts to his patient, or… of me to draw such a far-reaching conclusion from these scanty hints. I am well aware that this conclusion, seen from the standpoint of yesterday’s science, looks almost frivolous. But hundreds of parallel experiences have shown me that the above data are really quite sufficient to warrant my conclusion, and with a certainty that meets the most rigorous requirements. Those who have no experience of psychoanalysis can have no idea how very probable is the presence of an erotic wish and how extremely improbable is its absence… I therefore beg the reader: no moral indignation, please, but calm verification. This is what science is made with, and not with the howls of indignation, mockery, abuse, and threats, the weapons which German science use in arguing with us.” (Pg. 78)
In a 1910 paper ‘On the Criticism of Psychoanalysis,’ he argues, “It is a well-known fact to the psychoanalyst that laymen, even those with relatively little education, are able to understand the nature and rationale of psychoanalysis, without undue intellectual difficulty. It is the same with educated people… They can all understand the truths of psychoanalysis. They also understand very well why psychoanalysis cannot be expounded in the same convincing way as a mathematical proposition. Everyone … knows that a psychological proof must necessarily be different from a physical one… Under these circumstances we would expect our critics to study the neuroses and psychoses so thoroughly as we have done… and to put forward facts of an essentially different kind concerning their psychological determination. We have waited for this for more than ten years…
“In general, we must expect the most violent resistance from medical men and psychologists, chiefly because of scientific prejudices based on a different way of thinking to which they obstinately adhere. Our critics… commit the mistake of criticizing the psychoanalytic method as though it rested on a priori principles, whereas in reality it is purely empirical and totally lacking in any final theoretical framework.” (Pg. 86-87)
He notes, “If ever we are disposed to see some demonic power at work controlling mortal destiny, surely we see it here in these melancholy, silent tragedies working themselves out… in the sick souls of our neurotics… You cannot even maintain that these unhappy people are always neurotics or ‘degenerates.’ If we normal people examine our lives, we too perceive how a mighty hand guides us without fail to our destiny, and not always is this hand a kindly one. Often we call it the hand of God or of the devil… At all events it is felt as such, so that today in common speech … the source of any such destiny appears as a daemon, as a good or evil spirit.” (Pg. 107)
He suggests, “The essence of human psychology, precisely because so many different possible principles exist, can never be fully comprehended under any one of them, but only under the totality of individual aspects.” (Pg. 121)
This book will be of interest to those studying Jung’s early ‘Freudian psychoanalysis’ days.
Displaying 1 of 1 review