Vent CtrRes2 Cwik p41-42 - CG Jung Institute of New York

41
Counter Response to August Cwik
By William Ventimiglia, D.Min.
William J. Ventimiglia, D.Min., is an analyst in private
practice in Topsfield and Boston, MA,
President of the Training Board of the C.G. Jung
Institute of Boston, an adjunct faculty member of
Andover Newton Theological School, and former
President of the New England Society of Jungian
Analysts.
In his response to my article,
August Cwik raises the conundrum:
“How does the Self ... operationalize—
especially in a training institute”
Then, perhaps to illustrate the difficulty
those of us who are concerned with
supervision face in attempting to teach
a psychology which values fidelity to
the Self, Cwik points out that one person’s
claim to functioning out of the
Self is another person’s indicator of
“following a false god, a plain old ordinary
complex.” He is quite right. The
subjective seeking of personal truth
leads to endless conflict and misunderstanding.
How easy it is to play the
fool, even more so if we ask religious
feeling to inform ethical practice, as I
am suggesting. It would be far simpler
to ignore Jung’s approach to the unconscious
entirely, labeling it as unworthy
of consideration, as, in fact, the mainstream
of clinical psychology has done.
Any attempt to articulate a uniquely
Jungian theory of supervision presents
significant difficulties. At first
blush, attunement to the Self in training
sounds like an exciting proposition.
Wouldn’t it be great if everyone
involved in training were encouraged to
realize and function out of their own
uniqueness The problem with this,
however, is that the Self may not necessarily
share our ego goals for uncompromised
professional development and
functioning. Development proceeds by
way of moral conflict. I am reminded of
Jung’s caveat: “The Self leads not only
to all the good and respectable things
but also to all the very disreputable
things man is capable of doing.” 1 It is
not unusual in analytic practice to be
called upon to support the journey of an
analysand through some dark experience
because this is their unique individuation
path. As Jung added to the
sentence just quoted, “We understand
the Self as being the reconciling symbol,
the most desired fruit of the transcendent
function; but when it is necessary,
it is a trouble-maker, its own fool,
and that is good too.”
We dare not be naive. An actingthrough
of shadow contents may, at
times, be essential for personal growth;
but institutions are charged with the
responsibility of keeping the training
container safe for everyone concerned.
This changes the frame profoundly.
The operations of the Self in individuals
are circumscribed by concerns for
standards of ethical practice. Training
institutes are not simply centers for
enhanced personal analysis. We may
hope that a rich personal analysis will
be the cornerstone of training.
However, relatively soon after admission
to the training program, many
training candidates feel that even their
individual analytic relationship is
unsafe for spontaneous self-disclosure.
What many discover upon admission to
training is that one’s personal analyst is
no longer experienced as one’s person-

42 / Ventimiglia
al analyst. It becomes clear that he or
she also belongs to a network of colleagues
focused not only on therapy
and teaching but also on evaluation.
Probably there will be political factions
competing for dominance. It then
becomes apparent to the initiate that
Jungian training lacks theoretical
homogeneity. It may come as a shock
to learn that “elders” don’t speak with a
common language; nor do they come
from a common experience of the
unconscious. To make matters worse, a
training analyst, supervisor, or evaluator
may be more committed to their
own narcissistic mirroring than they are
to encouraging an emergence of the
candidate’s true self and corresponding
style in doing analysis. Moreover, as
soon as candidates begin seeing
patients under supervision then their
personal analysis inevitably takes second
place to learning the art of doing
therapy. Therapeutic regressions are
less likely to occur. Libido is now
increasingly dedicated to professional
skill development.
What does all this imply for “operationalizing”
the Self in training institutes
And what do I mean by suggesting
that religious feeling inform the ethical
practice of supervision It means
teaching the symbolic method of
approaching the manifestations of the
unconscious. It means teaching Jung’s
notion of the autonomy and reality of
the psyche alongside more recent contributions
from psychoanalytic traditions.
As Lionel Corbett has stated, it means
teaching “all of the manifestations of the
Self so that they can be recognized for
what they are. Numinosity is the obvious
criterion, but may not be recognized
for what it is.” 2 It means teaching that
the analyst can do very little to operationalize
the Self in another human
being but we can create an optimum
environment for the Self to make its
presence and “intent” known. This
means cultivating an attitude of respectful
listening and watching. It means
teaching that a therapeutic space is
today, just as it always has been, a
sacred space. As Mircea Eliade states,
“The first possible definition of the
sacred is that it is the opposite of the profane.”
And “Man becomes aware of the
sacred because it manifests itself, shows
itself, as something wholly different
from the profane.” 3 Thus, “the sacred is
equivalent to a power, and, in the last
analysis, to reality. The sacred is saturated
with being.” 4 This is the attitude of
the circumcised heart, which does not
take the place of professional accountability
but deepens it with the conviction
that supervision, like analysis, serves a
value that commands our deepest loyalty
and respect. Accountability to the Self
does not mean doing what we like
because we feel compelled to do it. It
has much more to do with doing what
we must as we reverence another person’s
highest value.
Notes
1. C. G. Jung, The Visions Seminars, bk. 2
(Zurich: Spring, 1976), p. 472.
2. Lionel Corbett, “Supervision and the
Mentor Archetype,” in Jungian Perspectives
on Clinical Supervision, ed. Paul Kugler
(Einsiedeln: Daimon, 1995), p. 75.
3. Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane
(New York: Harcourt, Brace & World,
1959), pp. 10-11.
4. Ibid., p. 12.