ABSTRACT
The reader will recall that a main premise of the first chapter was that differences between the Schools of analytical psychology can enable us to see the discipline as a whole. A common tradition is not enough to hold a group together. It also needs areas of dialogue in order to avoid the twin illusions of consensus and schism and assure continued movement into the future. For this reason I propose to summarise some of the areas in which I observe the apparently opposed Developmental and Archetypal Schools reacting similarly in an iconoclastic, revisionary way to the expressed tenets of Classical analytical psychology. The two wings appear to be attacking the centre. I am not claiming that developmentally and archetypally oriented analytical psychologists agree upon their differences; they most certainly do not. But they share a common process.
