TOWARDS A FURTHER INTEGRATION OF ANALYTICAL PSYCHOLOGY WITH OTHER FORMS OF PSYCHOTHERAPY: C. G. JUNG AND HAROLD SEARLES COMPARED

This dissertation coordinates the psychotherapeutic models of C. G. Jung and Harold Searles through a comparative analysis of their original writings. This consolidation follows current trends in psychotherapy research, doctoral research, clinical practice, analytical psychology and psychoanalysis. The literature review also notes comparisons of Jung's and Searles' systems with other psychotherapies.;Both theorists share an original, purposive approach to psychopathology. Illness is defined as pathological content with minimal self-awareness. The writers' views on defense, diagnosis and origins of disease next receive attention. Searles and Jung are shown to converge closely regarding phylogenetic regression.;Jung and Searles stress a similar goal for the therapy process: repair of internal imagos. Transference is the core and dynamic of cure in their systems, and therapist and client are both "in therapy." The theorists coincide around methods and style of interpretation, though interpretative content may differ. Although they use different analogies, the authors outline the typical progression of therapy in a five-stage, transference-based model.;In accord with the centrality of transference, Jung and Searles emphasize the technical use and refinement of the therapist's personality. Different aspects of the therapist's in-session style are mentioned, as well as his personality traits in general. The therapist in both models is revealed as a person with a special relationship to his "client," within and without.;Points of intersection between Searles and Jung are first explored regarding personality theory. The nature, origins and dynamics of the unconscious are compared. Theoretical similarities around consciousness, image/reality, psychological reality and dialectics are discussed. Jung's and Searles' differing versions of self and individuation are then considered.;This study concludes that Searles' and Jung's therapy models overall show vast areas of similarity. Points of difference still prove complementary. Fluid, noncompetitive, comprehensive or typological perspectives con provide means of integration. Besides its cmparison of Jung and Searles, this dissertation contributes an organized presentation of their therapies individually, an historical and clinical mainstreaming of Jung, a suggestion of the nonspecific factors in healing, and a method for comparing therapy models of all sorts.