Bright Young Things discussion

Hello and welcome to November's non-fiction read of A Most Dangerous Method: The Story of Jung, Freud & Sabina Spielrein by John Kerr.

Enjoy!

Some editions leave out "Most" from the title. It's still the same book as far as I can tell.

I think this book will give us a few things to talk about. I haven't finished it yet, but I'll throw out some questions.

Is Sabina sick? If so, does Jung cure her?

Is hysteria an illness, or a product of the times? What does this say about today's mental illnesses?

Why is Freud reluctant to disclose how to perform psychoanalysis? What does this say about the treatment of his patients and possibly the treatment of mentally ill patients today?

By the way, I work with adults with mental illnesses. I'm not a doctor or nurse, but I can answer questions based on what I've seen and learned.

Have you seen the movie with Kiera Knightly? - it was a strange but affecting film in which Sabina came across as a unique in her interaction with life. Yes it did look like she was ill at first in that her history seems to have (mal)formed her...but in the end she was very strong and a bit of a maverick for women in her field.

Is Sabina sick? If so, does Jung cure her?
At the time I think many people would have answered yes to both, but we would not be so sure now. I think I would say that she was disturbed and that he helped (initially).

Is hysteria an illness, or a product of the times?
That is a difficult question because it could be both. How would hysteria symptoms be diagnosed now compared to then and would we consider that an illness? The situation for women at the time almost certainly contributed to the high incidence of various neurotic disorders.

Why is Freud reluctant to disclose how to perform psychoanalysis?
I think this is the dilemma a lot of scientists face. He wants to own the technique, so not reveal the details, but also knows that it will not be taken seriously if other practitioners can't use it and get the same results, so he dithers.

PS I haven't seen the film, but have now looked it up. It does not seem as if it has taken much from the book (which would not make a very exciting film). The film is based on a play "The Talking Cure" which uses the characters from the book.

John Kerr, in his book, says that he is happy with the relationship between Carl Jung and Sabrina Spielrein not being a sexual one, but that we can't know whether it was or not. Does it make a difference or was Jung's behaviour unethical even without sex?

I am inclined to think it was unethical. She was his patient, so if he couldn't be emotionally detached and treat her as 'just a patient', he should have passed her case to a different doctor or stopped treatment altogether. Once she was no longer his patient then it was fine for them to be friends from the ethical viewpoint, although there could still have been social implications.

Great comment, Val.

Perhaps it was their friendship (with or without benefits) that helped her. There is research out today that suggests the treatment used on people with mental health issues (psychoanalysis, DBT, Cognitive, etc) is less important than the rapport the client has with their providers.

I think that building a rapport with the patient is the first step in the treatments they are developing, but they are trying to move towards something more structured than just the 'sympathetic listener', as Kerr describes it, to uncover the things the patient wouldn't tell them (repressed childhood memories). Many people with mental health issues may just need that sympathetic listener: they are not repressed so much as not really listened to. That is probably more true nowadays than it was in the early twentieth century.

Jung and Spielrein had more than a friendship. They started off as doctor and patient, which seems to have gone very well and led to an improvement in her condition. Then they had an emotional relationship and possibly a physical one, which did not always go at all well. Then they became friends and he was also her mentor for her dissertation, which also seemed to go well. I think that in that period when they had some relationship, he was affecting her emotions, not always to her benefit, whether it was a physical relationship or not. (I suppose that rather hinges on whether the 'Siegfried' she wanted was an actual baby or not and when she found out how you went about getting one.)

It's been a while since I listened to the earlier chapters, so I'm sure it talked about some of Sabina's earlier relationships, but what do you think her childhood and teen years were like? Do you think she had a "sympathetic listener"? I'm guessing Jung may have been one of the first people to ever pay her any real attention.

Also, the ethics is an interesting issue. When you work really closely with people on difficult stuff, you develop bonds. I know of case workers who take former clients out to coffee, and therapists who give out their home phone numbers. At my job, we had very lengthy conversations about a former client spending free time with a former employee. They were going out on weekends and running errands together, etc. I'm certain there wasn't a sexual relationship there (due to the sexuality of the resident), but it was a thorny issue for us.

There is some information on Sabina's early life, but it does not add up to a complete picture as it is more concerned with her fantasy life than her actual one. Her mother kept her in complete ignorance of anything to do with sex, even getting the school syllabus changed to remove any teaching of reproduction from it. Sabrina and her mother seem to have been close generally, but would not have discussed that topic. She mentions 'playing God' and other imaginative role play, with her uncle and brother. Her relationship with her father is a problem: in Jung's report on her analysis and in her own diary she has an early memory of her father spanking her brother on his bare bottom and her ensuing fantasies of 'the father's chastising hand', but it is not clear whether he spanked her too or whether he didn't and she wanted him to. It seems that, either way, his main role in the family was not as confidant.

The issue of ethics is taken very seriously nowadays, as it should be, but I don't really see a problem with a therapist having a close friendship or a relationship with someone, so long as they are not treating them as a patient at the time. It was a thorny issue in the book as well, obviously, but not as openly discussed. Jung later went on to have a sexual relationship with Toni Wolff, but not while she was a patient of his, although Emma Jung had already been jealous of their closeness. He does not appear to have been secretive about it.

If we think about the other significant relationship:
I got the impression that Carl Jung could not get a coherent theory together unless he had a close collaborator who understood him, whereas Sigmund Freud mainly worked alone to develop his theories, even when it might have helped him to develop them further if he had a close collaborator.

How readable are you guys finding this book? The length was off-putting to me, so I didn't even attempt because I didn't think I'd finish in time.

Val, Jung strikes me as "clingy" in this book. Looking for a father figure, perhaps? I am struck that Jung seems to be the golden boy, heading up various talks and committees, and the newsletter. In my experience, I knew about Freud long before I'd ever heard of Jung.

Sarah, I'm listening to it on audio book. It has taken me quite a bit of time to get through, but mostly because it's downloaded to my computer, so I can't take it with me. I find the subject matter totally fascinating. You can always come back and comment later when you have a chance to get to it.

Jung did become the poster boy. I think it was partly his position in the Burghölzli, which was important for anyone who wanted psychoanalytic theory and techniques to be taken as scientific, partly the father-son or teacher-pupil relationship he had with Freud and partly that Freud was worried about anti-Semitism in Austria. He was keen on self-promotion as well, which Eugen Bleuler, the more appropriate collaborator with Freud, was not.

The book did take me several weeks to read, but I thought it was definitely worth it.

Hi everyone, I thought this book was fascinating. although sometimes a bit dry in parts. It is definitely written for the "intelligent reader." I did find Jung a bit "clingy" like Jennifer and think he had a lot of deep-rooted issues which maybe explains why he connected with Sabina so much.

As for ethics, I do agree that he needed to build a rapport with his patients, but perhaps he went a little too far with this one?

Did anyone find the author a bit "Jungist?" I felt that he seemed to favour Jung more than Freud in the way it was written.

Thanks--I think I'll put it in my summer reading pile, but I've found reading your comments fascinating, so I will absolutely come back to the thread.

I hope you do come back and comment, Sarah. I plan to finish this book this week while I'm on vacation.

Elizabeth and Val, I think the author may be "Jungist." I have been trying to figure out how much of a key player Jung was. Or, in other words, why is it that Freud is now the more famous one of the pair?

The author does seem to be more sympathetic to Jung, who doesn't behave very well from the information available. The only thing Freud seems to have done 'wrong' was to try and keep control of his method, his intellectual property.

I've been listening to the parts on ancient myths and I have to admit they are confusing me. What is it that Jung and Sabina are trying to say with them?

Also, I wonder at not just Sabina, but several patients becoming analysts. Do they possess better skills because they have been on the receiving end of the system? I wonder what it would be like if some of my clients became staff. I think that would make a lot of people uneasy. It would certainly be weird talking with someone I once counseled about how to counsel others...

I'm not sure Jennifer, I found that a bit over-complicated! I did enjoy the fact that Freud always managed to bring everything round to sex though - is nothing sacred?!
As to patients becoming analysts I did find that quite queer but I think it is as you say and they possess good empathy skills.

Freud and Jung dissolved their professional relationship over the definitions and implications of incest and libido??? Really guys?

lol @ jennifer W !

I finally finished! I'll return later and post some thoughts, right now I have a headache (not related to the book! ;)