Thanks Jean for your fluent and homely paper .. I’m trying to get at its groundedness by using that word ‘homely’ (not in a pejorative way, in other words), but I have objections despite my admiration.
And perhaps it’s because at the moment I am reading Helena Bassil-Morozow’s new book on the ‘Trickster and the system’. She warns her readers that when the trickster sleeps, the shadow takes over and that’s kind of what worries me. The upshot of this is that you may want the trickster to sleep (or so I read this…). And that’s dangerous for creativity.
Do we have pretensions to be a sort of mini-capitalist organisation where the individual is subsumed to a way of behaving that is accountable?
We have to be careful that by complying with what Helena calls a kind of ‘instrumental reassurance’, we sweep through and turn not only inward but also to a kind of goal for the organisation that is limiting. This disquiets me.
…although, maybe i’m wrong: maybe it’s simply just changed; after all, what’s the mission? To spread the word? About what? just add new members? why?
My own view is that we are about putting out sometimes upending and sometimes innovative notions that stem from the theoretics Jungian studies can articulate or at least stir up; but ultimately this ‘message’ or ‘mission’ is not a cleanly defined data-driven goal that can be monitored by Google analytics etc.
And we are at loggerheads often about the nature of our studies. (We see this reflected in such publications as John Dourley’s wonderful books, so different and yet equally valid (for me) to Helena’s, Susan’s and the terrific cinema books Chris Hauke, Luke Hockley , and then there’s Evangeline’s personal journeys, Fran Gray’s and Roger’s philosophy books, Andrew’s collection, Paul Bishop’s, and Jon Mills’s, Al’s and Diego’s, etc.- so different to each other – and sorry if I leave someone out – I know I have.)
When Jean recounts comparisons to a church-based organisation, I am unsettled, and grumble to myself, but then I sit quiet for a minute and think on that. Why were (and there are still) Jungian organisations closer to clubs or circles than to a corporate set up (although as we are all aware from being exposed to psychometric testing, Jungian typology has played a big role in HR procedures in businesses some of us work in – and there is a stream of Jungian studies devoted to corporate tactics of hiring personnel). Hmm.
sorry for the length of this – I too feel very strongly about the nature of organisations and how and what they may do to stamp on the trickster and the poets and introverts too among us.
love from Leslie Gardner