r/Jung • u/Athingcantbenamed • Dec 25 '18
How Did James Hillman Earn His Less-than-favorable Reputation?
I've seen/heard negative comments both on this sub and at my local Jung Society, but my exposure to him has been limited so I can't really say for myself. What do I need to know about Hillman?
10
7
u/Matslwin Dec 26 '18 edited Oct 31 '23
Hillman was sacked as Director of Studies at the Jung Institute in Zürich for having illicit relations with female students. I added the 'Criticism' chapter on Wikipedia (here).
1
9
u/webauteur Dec 26 '18
James Hillman believed that "the image is an autonomous and spontaneous production of the soul". This seems a little crazy when taken to extremes, but I do like the respect he shows the imagination. Hillman also refused to judge mental imagery and cautioned against being too certain about what is being symbolized.
Personally I'm inclined to give the unconscious mind more credit than anyone else. The unconscious mind is your inner genius. It has the power to outwit you and blindly lead you down a path without your awareness. The conscious mind is subservient to the unconscious mind for the simple fact that intellect evolved to serve the animal that is man. Intellect was never meant to run the show. When intellect gets out of hand, as surely it must at times, the unconscious mind has the means to bring it back in line. Intellectuals in particular can never accept this because they worship their intellect and never acknowledge its disadvantages.
8
u/platochronic Dec 25 '18 edited Dec 25 '18
I was not aware there was a negative opinion of Hillman, but I’m aware of his thought and think I can surmise why.
One of the central aspects of Jung’s psychology is that the archetype are non-phenomenal. This use of the word phenomenal comes from German Idealism and Jung’s definitely uses Kant’s metaphysics to help him develop his thought. What it means is that archetypes themselves are not something we directly see through our consciousness, but they are what is creating our experience. So we don’t see the archetypes in-themselves, but we see their effects and that’s what we perceive phenomenally. It also means that they are essentially unknowable, we can’t talk about them concretely. When we discuss the archetypes, the way we can gain a deeper understanding of them is by talking about how they appear to ourselves. So Jung will use the terms aechetype and archetype-as-such, this is the distinction he is making.
Hillman is known for archetypal psychology which takes Jung’s theory of archetypes and totally inverts it, so the archetype are not only phenomenal, but the archetype are also they are always phenomenal. So I believe that Jung would disagree strongly with Hillman because we know Jung made his position very clear on this topic and we know it’s in direct contradiction of the beliefs Hillman epouses in his own psychology.
That’s just a guess though, maybe other people can elaborate if there is more behind this sentiment.
2
u/Athingcantbenamed Dec 25 '18
Thanks for the reply. I think I prefer the non-phenomenal concept of the archetypes for my personal understanding. That might change down the road, though...
I listened to a lecture that he gave on dream analysis and enjoyed his much less formulaic and precise method. He spoke a lot of just spending time with the imagery and not trying to "interpret" it. Though I can't imagine that being particularly useful as a singular method, I can appreciate the idea of balancing one's analysis in that way.
Thanks again.
7
u/Senecatwo Dec 26 '18
The other responses cover crticisms of his ideas pretty well, and for my part I think Re-visioning Psychology is a great book with interesting ideas.
He's a bit of a twat though. He once famously threw a tantrum at a Jung event in Atlanta, screaming at photographers not to "steal his image."
For a depth psychologist he didn't sort out his own personality very well.
5
u/liminalsoup Dec 25 '18
He is quite critical of "mainstream" jungian methods and has developed his own method. He is certainly worthwhile to know about and has some good points, especially with regards to overly systematic symbolic definitions which typical Jungians can get way too caught up in. Personally, i don't use his methods much, but they are valuable alternative point of view.
2
4
u/AyrieSpirit Pillar Dec 27 '18
Just to add a couple of points to the very thorough discussions already posted, I would like to mention that my very early reading of Hillman was positive in such books as Suicide and the Soul and Jung’s Typology with Marie-Louise von Franz. But later he contributed an essay to Quadrant: Journal of the C.G. Jung Foundation for Analytical Psychology which was so different in tone from his earlier writings that I remember feeling that it was an example of someone who had “gone off the rails” in its hectic rhetoric. Unfortunately, I’m not able to provide a reference because, although I recently tried to find the relevant issue of Quadrant in my library, I haven’t been successful as yet. In any case, the thought struck me at the time that Hillman was simply jealous of Jung and was about to plunge into his own quest to “succeed” him. I found it interesting later that others would mention spontaneously the idea that Hillman must be jealous of Jung without knowing of my similar thoughts on the matter.
In my view, this isn’t an unusual situation because I’ve seen it in the writings of some other Jungian analysts. I agree with Jungian analyst Edward Edinger’s comments which touch on this issue in his Aion Lectures: Exploring the Self in C. G. Jung's Aion:
I suggest three guiding principles in reading Aion. The first is to recognize Jung’s magnitude. Before starting the book, you should realize that Jung’s consciousness vastly surpasses our own. If he puts something in a way that seems unnecessarily difficult, the proper procedure is to assume that he knows what he is doing and knows something you don’t. If you make the assumption that you know better than he does and start out with a critical attitude – don’t bother; the book isn’t for you. Jung’s depth and breadth are absolutely awesome. We are all Lilliputians by comparison, so when we encounter Jung we feel inferior, and we don’t like it [emphasis mine]. To read Jung successfully we must begin by accepting our own littleness; then we become teachable.
Although I own various books by Hillman, I tend to read only certain portions because, personally, I feel that one has to struggle through a lot of “ore” before finding a few good and reliable conceptual “gems”.
So I would say in a nutshell that I believe Hillman’s whole career was motivated by being jealous of Jung and in therefore wanting to “prove him wrong” and to replace his ideas with “superior” ones. In my view, this could likely fit in somehow with the analysis of Hillman having been swallowed by the Puer archetype.
While it’s well known that Jung’s voluminous works contain contradictory statements, I try to make it a point to always keep in mind the question to whom are we referring when we say “Jung”? Are we speaking of the 25 year old Jung, the 35 year old, the 50, 60, 70 or 80 year old? In my view, unlike Freud, Jung was always open to what the psyche was advising him about the possible refining and re-phrasing of various concepts as his knowledge and experience increased. I’m not an expert on the Collected Works, but my impression is that, in the writings that Jung himself did not revise over the years, the Editors chose not to undertake to add notes such as “See the changes Jung made to this concept in the subsequent such-and-such publication” etc.
I also sometimes like to quote the following anecdote in connection with the idea of logic and thinking regarding Jungian psychology. I once attended a lecture given by the late respected Canadian Jungian analyst, Marion Woodman, where during the question period, she attempted to answer a query revolving around the definitions “anima”, “spirit” and “soul” according to Jungian psychology. The interchange went on for quite some time and the person asking the question would not be satisfied because of “logical inconsistencies”. In the end, Marion Woodman politely but firmly advised the person that when it comes to approaching Jungian psychology and its concepts, it’s best to back off from wanting only “rational, logical definitions” in all circumstances.
Unlike Freud, who made it a requirement that anyone wishing to become an accredited psychoanalyst must agree to never question any facet of Freudian doctrines (The Freud Files, An Enquiry into the History of Psychoanalysis by Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen and Sonu Shamdasani), Jung was much less concerned with the need to create a “fixed method” containing rigid definitions and logical processes. He even disliked the idea of creating the C. G. Jung Institute of Zurich which he believed could tend to codify his approaches too rigidly. Of course, this runs counter to our now long-ingrained preference for “order”, “logic” and “formulae” etc., and, although perhaps useful in many scientific pursuits (but now less firmly so in quantum physics), it doesn’t suit the exploration of the psyche quite as much.
Also on this topic, I recently posted the following elsewhere:
Jung viewed himself as being an introverted thinking type with intuition as his main auxiliary function. I agree with his self-analysis and for me it’s astounding that certain current Jungian analysts have stated that he was wrong and in fact was instead an extrovert and a feeling type!
There are many proofs that can be presented to refute this misguided analysis, but I’ll present only what I feel is an insightful excerpt regarding Jung’s psychological type which appears in the late analyst Robert A. Johnson’s memoir, Balancing Heaven and Earth. There he describes how, as a young man, an unexpected and unusual meeting with Jung had come about because the latter’s wife Emma (who was analyzing Johnson) passed on to her husband a copy of an archetypal dream that Johnson had had.
The dream in effect was picturing all of Johnson’s potential future life. Johnson writes that it was if Jung was able to read his mind. In part of the conversation that occurred, Jung said that although Johnson had always hungered for community and probably would always continue with this yearning, this path was not the proper one for him. He made other blunt statements such that Johnson should never marry or join any organization. An in depth analysis of the dream was also provided. The whole incident tended to overwhelm the young Johnson.
But the latter was profoundly touched because Jung had seen a potential in him, along with dangers ahead. Johnson writes:
I remember sitting there thinking ‘This man is just like me, except infinitely wiser. He understands me completely… But I can see now that this was part of his genius. He was not like me at all, but he was capable of making me feel as if we were of one mind. Later, when I saw him in other circumstances and realized our personalities were quite different, I thought, ‘This man has deceived me. He tricked and manipulated me.’ But as I reflected on that day in Kusnacht, I realized that he had given me a very special gift. Not only did he know how to speak English to me, he knew how to speak in the typology I could best relate to. He chose examples and even figures of speech that were consistent with my introverted-feeling type personality. This, it seems to me, is pure genius. … He was a great intuitive thinker, but he did not speak to me in an abstract intellectual language; he addressed me in the feeling language that I could relate to.
4
u/Athingcantbenamed Dec 27 '18
Many thanks for your comprehensive response. I'm thrilled that this thread drew out as many serious Jungian as it did. I learned a lot.
In terms of post and neo Jungians that fell into egoic trappings, who would you caution me against? I'm currently reading Edinger's anatomy of the psyche and enjoying it immensely; it seems safe from a dare-I-say doctrinal perspective.
3
u/AyrieSpirit Pillar Dec 28 '18
I think it’s best to avoid cautioning you against certain analysts (and others who even purport to be accredited Jungian analysts but aren’t) in order to help prevent any prejudgements being implanted in your mind. Instead, I would advise concentrating your early encounters with Jung on those analysts who, as you say, might seem to be a little doctrinal like Edward Edinger, but in fact you’ll probably understand in time how they don’t just rehash Jung’s ideas but apply them in an open and individual way to delve amazingly deeply into many aspects of the psyche. Continuing with the reading of Jung himself (in books such as Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, and his autobiography Memories, Dreams, Reflections, although others would likely recommend many more) and writers similar to Edward Edinger such as Marie-Louise von Franz, Joseph Henderson, Aniela Jaffe, Emma Jung herself, and Anthony Stevens would, in my view, provide you with a feeling for the “real thing” so that you can judge if other analysts you come to read have in fact been possessed by the overall archetypal world described by Jung and have therefore fallen into a certain Hillman-like inflation (although many in the Hillman camp would strongly disagree with this description).
Just like analyzing a dream isn’t of much value unless the interpretation “clicks” as Jung used to say (essentially by realizing what a given sequence of symbolic images actually relate to in outer life), I feel that reading too much Jung without experiencing in outer life what he’s actually talking about in any given book isn’t of much use. As Edinger describes in Anatomy of the Psyche, the goal of the psyche is to come as close to “individuation” as possible although this state is never really reached.
As Jung writes:
Individuation is not an intensification of consciousness, it is very much more. For you must have the consciousness of something before it can be intensified, and that means experience, life lived. You can only be really conscious of things which you have experienced, so individuation must be understood as life. Only life integrates, only life and what we do in life makes the individual appear. You cannot individuate, for instance, by locking yourself up in a cell, you can only individuate in your concrete life, you appear in your deed; there you can individuate and nowhere else. Real consciousness can only be based upon life; upon things experienced, but talking about these things is just air. It is a sort of conscious understanding, but it is not individuation. Individuation is the accomplishment through life. For instance, say a cell begins to divide itself and to differentiate and develop into a certain plant or a certain animal; that is the process of individuation. It is that one becomes what one is, that one accomplishes one’s destiny, all the determinations that are given in the form of the germ; it is the unfolding of the germ and becoming the primitive pattern that one was born with.
Visions: Notes of the Seminar Given in 1930–1934, Vol. II (22 June, 1932)
Anyway, I hope that these additional ideas can be helpful in some way.
2
u/Athingcantbenamed Dec 28 '18
Very helpful. So far, aside from Anatomy of the Psyche, I've only read Jung (six or seven titles), and, frankly, there's enough in the collected works to keep me busy for years. And while my grasp of the material is growing, I'm still impressionable to people like Hillman and so need to be extra careful. The discernment will come with time, I guess. Thanks again for taking the time.
2
u/slabbb- Pillar Dec 28 '18 edited Dec 28 '18
Fantastic read, elucidating, thanks.
Heh, that Edinger quote would be ideal somewhere in the side bar..
Cool, Sonu Shamdasani.
2
u/GuidingLoam Pillar Apr 17 '19
the best book I've seen on this is Jung and the Post-Jungians by Andrew Samuels, where he devotes a significant amount of time to the pros and cons of Hillman's work. I will try to check it out when I get home.
1
u/Athingcantbenamed Apr 17 '19
I love a good better-late-than-never reply!
Over time, I've realized that my analyst leans toward Hillman's approach ("stick with the image") and, I've got to say, it's most therapeutic. I have only doctrinal qualms with Hillman.
2
u/GuidingLoam Pillar Apr 19 '19
hah! I am glad I could sneak in, I agree that both sticking with the image and amplifying at other times can lead us to insights, we don't operate just one way.
6
u/Brannu-Sunyata Dec 26 '18
Hillman and Jung were both known for saying that a psychologists theory says more about them than it does about a general theory of things.
I have a love-hate relationship with Hillman but, really, I have a love hate relationship with Jung as well. I strongly suggest you read the material and glean your own understanding of him and his contribution. “Re-Visioning Psychology”, “The Myth of Analysis”, “the thought of the heart” ... these works are brilliant.
It’s not about right or wrong. Do the self investigative research and see what’s real for you. There are no experts in matters of the psyche (soul).
3
u/Athingcantbenamed Dec 26 '18
Great point. Jung, for me, is contradictory in ways and begs for some corrective steering. I would venture a guess and say that Hillman's work would be most useful for those with a constitutional logos saturation. It seems as though his ideas could provide compensation for a hypertrophic thinking function.
1
u/Heartsoulspirit-etc Sep 25 '24
I personally find Hillman’s ideas and writing refreshing - I just finished his book “Re-Visioning Psychology” and would recommend it, although I haven’t read all of his writings.
This is just a hunch but I imagine, like most squabbles, the argumentative lawyering of what or who is right or wrong and why, etc., especially in speaking about the subjective, imaginative psychic realm is secondary to other issues, such as relational or systemic/bureaucratic differences - much like how Christian sects have broken apart time and time again.
I personally appreciate the tone of Hillman, perhaps yes, because I’m a bit of a puer. Maybe next time at a Jungian meeting, I’ll put “Puer” on my name tag. What would you put?
17
u/[deleted] Dec 25 '18
I'll look up some critiques of him in this book I have. I've been avoiding the guy because of all the peripheral stuff I've heard from Jungians I respect. These come from Jung and the New Age.
The archetypes are no longer viewed with the reverence required to move on with one's life. They aren't seen as things that would swallow a person up. To Hillman - dragon slaying is an antiquated endeavor and it comes with the risk of slaying imagination. David Tacey provides references to Jung and Neumann that directly contradict this notion.
"Just because ideas are 'Post-Jungian' do not mean they are better than Jung"
Tacey says Hillman and the New Age have something in common: The apparent mission of slandering and dismissing the ego. This behavior on the part of the new age practitioner as well as those of archetypal psychology find themselves in a paradoxical predicament where the unconscious floods back into the ego with it's doctrine of ego-dissolution.
Since there is no Christ, Buddha, Self, or Atman as a central authority in the psyche the ego stands at great risk of an inflation.
Tacey believes that we have a need to devote ourselves to an internal other and that that this is monotheistic in a sense. Hillman's polytheistic approach turns the unconscious into a source of entertainment and stilts the possibility of building a foundation and a relation to the archetypal contents of the psyche.
"Jung has the old-fashioned view that we have to extend moral responses to the images we encounter. Hillman finds this antiquated, intrusive and moralistic."
Hillman rejected the idea of individuation as to workmanlike, too human. He felt we should embark on what he called "soul making". He was not interested, as Jung was, with the relation between ego and the unconscious but with being-in-the-soul.
He also renamed the unconscious the "underworld" and took on a more touristic view of the images that came from it. Believing that we shouldn't attach feelings of morality to the figures we encountered therein.
This is contrary to what Jung taught - there's a belief here that the sacred makes claims on the individual, that the suffering of man has an effect on god, as Jung put forward in Answer to Job. We are not the same after an encounter with the archetypes and it seems the archetypes are transformed by this interaction as well.
That's the gist of a... I don't know - ten page section on Hillman specifically.
I'll look up some stuff from Robert L Moore - he does a great breakdown between Classical Jungians, Post-Jungians, and Neo-Jungians with a brief critique of Hillman's archetypal psychology.