THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SATANIC CULT INVOLVEMENT: AN ...

215
When attempting to relate object relations theory to analytical psychology, one is faced
with three possibilities: (1) to approach these as fundamentally divergent and essentially
incompatible discourses; (2) to argue that, although they employ different lexicons, the
central concepts are equivalent, describing the same psychic reality, and can thus be
harmoniously incorporated into a single perspective; (3) to emphasise the latent
commonalties between these depth psychologies, while preserving their distinct identities
as participants in a dialogue perpetuated by their respective differences. The first two
options, based on mutual exclusion or forced identity, respectively, are not intellectually
viable. The contention that these perspectives are mutually exclusive has been
historically proven to be both intellectually unproductive and professionally divisive. But
the opposite argument, that these two approaches are describing the identical reality using
equivalent languages, is both naive and undesirable. It diffuses the creative tension and
dialogical possibility that depends on preserving the conceptual and metaphorical
distance between these perspectives.
This author, therefore, subscribes to the third
possibility, which promotes the search for common ground between analytical and object
relations perspectives without, however, attempting to negate their differences or force an
integration that violates the integrity of the respective approaches. The argument of this
chapter is that the discourses of analytical psychology and object relations theory are,
despite their differences, analogous in many respects, and that these analogies have been
nurtured into commonalties by Jungians from the developmental school. Charlton (1997)
clearly articulates the starting point ofthis perspective:
Though Jung's vision ofthe organization and workings ofthe psyche includes
the interaction of autonomous dynamisms that inhabit an inner world, he is
not considered an object relations theorist. However, if we think of an object
relations theory as an explanation of the ways in which relations with the
people in our lives are taken into an inner world where they affect the nature
and development of the personality, then Jungian theory can be viewed from
an object relations vantage point (p. 86).