Supposed  to be taking a break as my brain got too mashed to write coherent sentences before xmas – knew it was all going downhill, as if writing with fingers disconnected from thoughts, which had disconnected from feelings… not very much in the spirit of this journey!

But found Cchristopher Hauke’s book ‘On culture and the Human Soul’ a wonderful, rejuvenating read, rich in allusion to film and rooted in a Jungian sense of the human condition. Noted particularly his challenge to the marginalisation of intellect by aspects of psychotherapy – yes, glad to reclaim the mind, as long as it isn’t the only source of insight or information about the self or the world. Also referred to the ‘fantasy of wholeness’ which made me think about whether my thesis rests on such a fantasy, or how I might modify this to reflect the difference between the wholeness which I do believe underpins everything and  the partial and limited efforts which most of us are capable of making. Also to become aware of the danger of eliding differences which require attention – a tendency I always opposed in my political animal days; that dreary ‘let’s all be friends’ motif that belongs more fully to pop songs than ethical philosophy.

But underneath that, there is a unity, a coherent energy that can be seen in quantum physics at the subatomic level and in Hubble photos at the macro level and which can also be called divine. Bud Harris (see link to website) is giving a talk about wholeness and Holy longing from a Jungian perspective, which sounds appealing.  I say sounds appealing but am becoming aware of  different flavours of Jungian – those who take a romantic new age approach and those who are asking similar questions about being human and the role  of transcendence but seem more capable of recognising human awkwardness and the trickiness of such endeavours. Hauke reflects the latter group I think – more my cup of tea.

Just finished another two chapters – basic architecture really, they lack flesh, commentary , narrative, but have collected most of the quotes and set them in order now. Strong sense that there is so much more in my head than on paper – have read so much but some books end up as a quote here or there.

On the positive side I now find re-reading texts illuminating as obscure concepts become more familiar through repeated exposure.

Have noted quite different attitudes to Jung among those writing about him: there are the romantics who tend to use his language and imagery; the skeptics who assert their own distance and refer to ideas that ‘no one in their right mind’ would accept. Seems to reflect an internal split in Jung himself; the part that enters his own dreams, excavating his psyche for images and meaning; and the part that insists on his role as an empirical scientist. The latter role is challenged when  his selection of incontrovertible ‘facts’ includes concepts like archetypes!

Have also been reading about his anti-Semitism, which shocked me two years ago when I first read about it as my impressions had been more favourable until then. I’ve also met people who refuse to admit this possibility. But I respect those writers like Samuels who are practising Jungian analysts and prepared to look into this ‘abyss’. it does seem a non-negotiable aspect of his personality, which raises another point: I can’t think of another leading thinker whose actual person and biography attracts more coverage from examining their ideas. The life of Marx is interesting, for example, but one doesn’t have to come to terms with his personal and political decisions in the same way as seems to be required of those considering Jung’s concepts.

But Jung is awkward around all sociological issues: his focus is the individual and he treats society as oppressively normative, something from which the individual must separate to become him/her self. My thesis tries to blend his approach with a sociological ‘take’ – mm, not sure the two are going to blend as there is a real category split. My aim will be to hold a Jungian-type space in which the focus on the individual ethic can be ‘held’ in the context of social mores.

More or less finished drafting chapters on professions and professional ethics. Interested to discover how much material can be found to support the idea of a psychological approach to professions – and ethics – alongside the sociological studies which have tended to divide into those who find professions to be part of the ballast supporting social structures (like Dukheim) and those who accuse them of self aggrandisement to secure their own power (eg weber, Larson, Friedson).

While my sympathies are mainly with  the latter,  I found Durkheim rather surprising – usually characterised as a functionalist, conservative – don’t disagree but was interested by his concern for psychology and spirit – he shares many concerns with Jung – the withdrawal of the sacred from  everyday life; the loss of meaning and the importance of looking inward for value. Talks about collective consciousness (not unconscious) too. He, Jung and Weber were born within a few years of each other. Sense of connections between European thinkers. And how wide their thoughts were, ranging across disciplines in an inspiring manner that highlights the conservative silo-based structure of contemporary academic discourse.

Been ages. Got totally bogged down trying to write up chapters to a ridiculous timetable.Wanted to do viva early so David McKie cd be external, cos he’s a good professor, but it left me with about ten days per chapter and after 6 weeks realise that’s not doable. Writing has been going backward, getting slower and slower as I got more and more anxious. finally sussed that I have to put viva back to original June (ie late april submission). Still tight, will need several rewrites, proofing, binding etc. It all seemed so lucid and coherent in my head but is so LUMPY on the page. Oh well, I’ll get there in the end.

Gave first lecture in seven or more years on Tuesday – on professional ethics and PR.  Went well – helped me to hear the main story summarised and students seemed interested and engaged – nice feedback after. Just a one off guest spot, but good to know I can still do it.

A self-help approach but quite interesting. May use some of these ideas (and similar) in the final section of thesis to suggest practical applications for Jungian ethics.Finding your shadow

See new link for long article in NY Times on the Red Book, Jung’s inner journal, soon to be published.Jung\'s Red Book

Lots of coverage of the year since Lehman’s collapse today. Lots of talk about the public’s loss of trust. In a recent paper I cited Arthur W Page society research of leading CEOs which identified the loss of trust as the No 1 issue facing business today.
But thinking about the semantics: trust is about us – our failure to keep faith in institutions. We have been pathologised, made into the problem. Actually the issue isn’t lack of trust: it’s excess greed. That changes the focus, doesn’t it?

just back from Stirling 21, the academic conference for PR and comms people, brilliantly  organised by Jaquie L’Etang and team, including glorious weather.

Primary observation is the quality of papers and thought on offer: all the presentations I went to were driven by ideas not data: on the relationship between PR and anthropology, PR in fiction, dialogue and relationship, health sector ethics… much more. Didn’t see a single graph!

I presented two papers, one asking if there can be a psychology of the professions, which looked at sociological approaches to the professions and found a wealth of psychological material, though this is not explicitly identified as a psychology of professions. Then applied Jungian insights to professional development in general and then PR profession in particular. All the pieces seemed to fit, good questions and discussion. This has been useful paper to me, settling some uncertainties about the scope and direction of thesis.

Second paper was on hermeneutics, drawing on the work I did earlier in the year. Treated it as a report from recent adventures into hermeneutics, very open about my ignorance before (and still after) the trawl thru unfamiliar literature. Again, it makes much more sense to me now and was gratified that in later conversation one delegate thought I’d grasped subject well and others found it useful.

This is the last conference before I complete as I now need to put my head down and starting turning these papers into chapters. Looks like the viva will be in April now not June so need a good draft by the new year. Yikes!

Lots of interesting interviews with colleagues and students of Jung, made in 1986

two short films summarising Jung in v US-centred images and terms (cheerleaders!) but some useful clips in it.