Jung’s and Freud’s Approaches to Psychoanalysis

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Unconscious Mind
Conscious Mind
Lived Experiences
Dreams
Temporal Context
Transference
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

For millennia, people have been trying to unlock the mysterious realm of the human psyche and examine the mechanisms that drive changes in people’s psychological well-being. Due to the multitude of perspectives on the subject matter, the theories explaining the factors behind psychological changes observed in individuals my contradict one another and challenge one another’s premise. The stark contrast between theoretical perspectives is particularly visible in the theories by Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. Though both Yung’s and Freud’s theories focus on psychoanalysis as the foundational framework for analysis, the implications underlying the core tenets of Freudian and Jungian analysis are strikingly different.

Unconscious Mind

When comparing Freud’s and Jung’s theoretical perspectives on human psychology, as well as the practical implications of the specified approaches, one should mention the notion of unconscious mind and the associated practice of psychoanalysis first. The concept of the unconscious mind as the cornerstone of the study of the human psyche and core psychological changes represents the principal similarity between the two theories (Balenci, 2021). As a result, both Young and Freud acknowledged the role of psychoanalysis in the identification of patients’ psychological issues and the associated concerns.

Conscious Mind

However, apart from the common focus on psychoanalysis as the essential tool in exploring the human psyche, the two theories had very little in common. For instance, Freud’s interpretation of the role that the conscious mind played in the management of core psychological processes represented an essential point of difference when compared with that one of Yung. Specifically, in the Freudian perspective, the conscious mind serves to suppress the expression of people’s desires (Balenci, 2021). In contrast, Yung believed that conscious mind serves to negotiate people’s emotions and, therefore, contributes to a better understanding of self (Balenci, 2021). The specified discrepancy in the theorists’ understanding of the conscious mind’s role indicated that the two frameworks shared only a few genera ideas.

Lived Experiences

In fact, the concept of personal lived experienced serves as a major divisive point between the theoretical frameworks offered by Freud and Jung. Specifically, when examining the unconscious mind and the factors that drive its performance, Freud believed that sexual instincts, namely, libido, as well as aggression, activated it (Ponterotto & Moncayo, 2018). In comparison, Jung incorporated the notion of lived experiences mentioned above into his interpretation of the factors driving the functioning and activation of the unconscious mind. Therefore, the specified aspect of the two theories also allows driving a line between them.

One could argue that the difference highlighted above does not represent a major point since both perspectives are founded on similar constructs. Namely, in Freud’s perspective, sexual desires as the main motivation source for the unconscious mind to remain awaken could be interpreted as the examination of one’s instincts and the manner in which they shape behaviors (Ponterotto & Moncayo, 2018). In turn, Yung’s idea of lived experiences as the core contributors to one’s choices and decision-making could be seen as the introduction of instinctively selected behaviors as well (Ponterotto & Moncayo, 2018). While in Freud’s case, basic instincts are introduced, while Yung focuses on learned instincts, both seek to embrace the concept of instinct and the notion of instinctive behaviors as the platform on which they built their theories.

Dreams

Another essential incongruence between Freudian and Jungian theories is linked to the concept of as dream. Remarkably, both theories view dreams as a crucial piece of evidence and a source of multiple insights that will guide the further choice of the therapeutic approach 9). However, the function of dreams in Freud’s analytical framework is slightly different for that one of Jung’s. Namely, Freud believed that dreams were manifestations of people’s desires, especially those that had been repressed for a substantial amount of time (Swan-Foster, 2020). Consequently, in Freud’s analytical paradigm, dreams served as the release vault that allowed one to get rid of internal tension.

The outlined perspective exists in strong disagreement with that one of Jung, who viewed dreams as the source of changes within one’s personal life. Namely, the notion of dreams as a untie language that the unconscious mind uses to communicate essential changes within people’s bodies and, therefore, indicate the presence of possible health concerns. Therefore, unlike the Freudian perspective, which suggests that dreams represented a complex code that has to be deciphered, the Jungian approach insists that dreams are, in essence, straightforward messages (Swan-Foster, 2020). Consequently, the Jungian approach to interpreting dreams concerned applying language archetypes in order to identify the message and integrate it into further decision-making as an essential piece of information. The described difference between Freud’s and Jung’s theories represented a major point to be considered when comparing the two approaches.

Temporal Context

Additionally, the context in which psychoanalysis should occur is different in each theory. Remarkably, both theorists applied the notion of the temporal framework to introduce a certain structure into the psychoanalytical process (Niaz et al., 2019). However, while Freud believed that psychoanalysis had to be tethered to an individual’s past, Jung insisted that the focus on present was the crucial perspective to be applied to psychoanalysis (Niaz et al., 2019). Specifically, Freud’s psychoanalytical framework required delving into an individual’s childhood and introducing retrospect and introspect into the core events that transpired on the specified time slot (Niaz et al., 2019). Believing childhood experiences to be the formative ones that shaped an individual’s present attitudes and desires, Freud focused explicitly on the analysis of the past (Niaz et al., 2019). The perspective in question is quite reasonable since changing perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors in a patient requires studying the circumstances in which the behaviors and attitudes in question were formed.

The outlined approach conflicted with Jung’s idea of past being negligible and present being the essential source of vital patient data (Niaz et al., 2019). For instance, Jung viewed psychological disorders in the context of current factors, seeking the solution in the present-day context (Niaz et al., 2019). Remarkably, Jung did not deny the role that past events played in a patient’s psychological issues. Instead, he saw the past as a fixed phenomenon that did not provide major insights into the choice of actions for addressing a patient’s condition (Niaz et al., 2019). The described approach might seem to be less rational than the framework offered by Freud, especially given Yung’s focus on personal experiences. Indeed, the past and the associated experiences define one’s attitudes and behaviors to a notable extent since response patterns are learned fairly early in life (Niaz et al., 2019). Therefore, the refusal to consider the role of the past in the development of a framework for a patient’s recovery seems to be somewhat inefficient, which implies that Freud’s theory is more credible and efficient.

Transference

Finally, describing the differences between Jung’s and Freud’s approaches to psychoanalysis, one must mention the concept of transference. While both Freud and Yung used it actively in their theoretical frameworks and their practical application, their stances on the role of transference in therapy were quite dissimilar. Specifically, Freud envisioned transference as a one-way type of relationships, in which the therapist remains entirely neutral, whereas the patient experiences an entire gamut of emotions and transformations, projecting the experienced changes onto the therapist and, therefore, using the latter as a tabula rasa (DeRobertis, 2021). Remarkably, the concept of the clean slate, which represented a crucial part of the Blank Slate Theory, was a rather old idea that was rooted in Locke’s philosophy (Włodarczyk, 2020). However, Freud rejuvenated the specified notion, incorporating it into the psychotherapeutic context, which makes his contribution slightly greater.

In contrast to the described perspective on the human experience, Yung encouraged the framework based on mutual involvement in the therapy process. Specifically, Yung insisted that transference should occur from a patient to ta psychotherapist and vice versa (Balenci, 2021). From the perspective of personal experience, which Yung prioritized as the central concept in his theoretical framework, the described approach as quite legitimate. Namely, the offered model allowed a patient to experience development along with the therapist, thus, creating a chance to receive new insights. However, the offered paradigm was misaligned with the Freudian one, which encouraged active distancing between a patient and a therapist. Arguably, the Freudian approach minimizes risks to the patient, which makes it a more effective tool.

Conclusion

Despite the fact that both Freudian and Jungian theoretical frameworks are rooted in the same notion of psychoanalysis, the essential concepts and tenets that constitute the bulk of the specified theoretical frameworks still remain drastically different. Namely, the focus on the unconscious mind that Freud promoted as the key to understanding changes in the human psyche represented a striking difference from the approach that Jung adopted, namely, the exploration of individual experiences. Thus, while both experts popularized the concept of psychoanalysis, the approaches that they constructed to examine core psychological changes and the underlying processes were strikingly different.

Reference List

Balenci, M. (2021). Jung’s and Groddeck’s Analytic Practice: Alternative Methods That Have Prevailed over Freud’s Psychoanalysis. International Journal of Jungian Studies, 14(1), 20-46.

DeRobertis, E. M. (2021). The humanistic revolution in psychology: Its inaugural vision. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 61(1), 8-32.

Niaz, A., Stanikzai, S. M., & Sahibzada, J. (2019). Review of Freud’s psychoanalysis approach to literary studies. American International Journal of Social Science Research, 4(2), 35-44.

Ponterotto, J. G., & Moncayo, K. (2018). A cautious alliance: The psychobiographer’s relationship with her/his subject. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 18(sup1), 97-108.

Swan-Foster, N. (2020). CG Jung’s Influence on Art Therapy and the Making of the Third. Psychological Perspectives, 63(1), 67-94.

Włodarczyk, J. (2020). Beyond Bizarre: Nature, Culture and the Spectacular Failure of BF Skinner’s Pigeon-Guided Missiles1. Polish Journal for American Studies, 14, 7-140.

Click Here To Order Now!