Chicken Little: The Inside Story (A Jungian ... - Inner City Books

22 Chicken Little: The Inside Story
he had established a practice in Boise, Idaho (the first and last
Jungian, I believe, to do so). By the time I arrived in Zürich, in the
fall of 1974, his reputation as a conservative was well established.
29 No one I knew had seen him at conferences, but I had read
his articles in various journals, both Jungian and those devoted to
Chickle Schtick. To my knowledge, nothing written by him in either
field had been published since his landmark “Non-Euclidean
Perspective” on the estimable Ms. Little in 1968.
That was now twenty-four years ago, and since I left Zürich in
1978 his name had not appeared in the International Directory of
Jungian Analysts.
Where had Brillig been? Was he still practicing? How old could
he be? These questions whirled in my head.
As well, and to be perfectly honest, I had almost forgotten the
paper of mine to which Brillig alluded. It was already two years
since I wrote it and over a year since it had been published. It was
my very first contribution to the world of Chicken Little scholarship.
I believe it sprang from a feeling that someone should try to
bridge the lamentable gap between Chickle Schtick and Jungian
psychology—and the grandiose idea that I was just the one to do it.
I was full of it at the time and had eagerly looked forward to whatever
response might come. None did.
Now, although flattered by this belated but dramatic show of interest
by someone whose work I had the highest regard for, I was
more than a little uneasy that my, yes, let me admit it, somewhat
whimsical piece, which had already faded in my memory, should
be taken so seriously.
I dug my paper out and read it through, nodding to myself. I had
to smile at the bits attributed to “Janet Marble” and “A.G. Grandize.”
As I recall, they were Rachel’s doing.
“It has something,” she’d mused, reading my initial draft, “but it
29 There are different interpretations of what a “conservative” Jungian is. Personally,
I understand it to mean someone who adheres closely to Jung’s expressed
views. I have no reason to doubt that Brillig felt the same. When he was criticized
by Kleinians, Kohutians and so-called post-Jungians for being “too doctrinaire”
(i.e., not open to new ideas), he replied: “I see no need to reinvent the wheel. It
isn’t that Jung was never wrong, rather he was always right.” [American Journal
of Analytical Psychology, vol. 13, no. 4 (Fall 1965), p. 145]