ABSTRACT
It is impossible to understand contemporary analytical psychology and psychoanalysis without knowing something of the fault lines that characterized the early days of depth psychology. In geology, tension builds where segments of the earth’s crust are moving in different directions from each other, creating fault lines which give rise to sudden and violent seismic shifts. It is a metaphor which seems particularly appropriate to the world of depth psychology, which has experienced many such earthquakes in its history. The first of these occurred in 1913 when, after a period of increasing tension as Freud and Jung moved in different directions, they finally severed their relationship, creating a rupture between psychoanalysis and analytical psychology that persists to this day (Hayman 1999:164). Furthermore, within each school, further fault lines have developed so that a multiplicity of theories, trainings and clinical practice sit uneasily alongside each other and occasionally give rise to further violent fractures. Within analytical psychology, these fault lines, marking major divisions in theory and practice, have been extensively mapped in Samuels’ account of the main theoretical and clinical distinctions between the archetypal, classical and developmental schools and in Kirsch’s history of the Jungians (Samuels 1985; Kirsch 2001).
