The Truth is out there, somewhere…

Ronald Hayman's biography of C.G.Jung

Peter Geyer

"Become who you are" does not imply that we should become smooth, harmonious and polished, but rather that we should become increasingly aware of what we are and of what is voiced by our personality and all its rough edges                                        
Verena Kast 1992

Ronald Hayman: A Life of Jung, Bloomsbury 1999

There's something about biographies, stories about people's lives sometimes told by themselves, that seems to appeal to the public at large. If we are to believe Robin Dunbar (1997), these books, classified under non–fiction, are probably second only to novels in general popularity.

Some skeptics might say that biographies are often uncomfortably close to being fiction, the written equivalent of a movie "based on a true story", a proposition some who have been written about in this way might support. For me "based on a true story" means "don't expect any facts".

Others, like Arnold Ludwig (1997), point to each biographer's particular focus on the individual they have chosen to study, observing that entirely different  profiles of the same person may be built up. If you are a post–modernist, this is no big deal; postmodernism is, after all, a literary creation. In some ways, that's a recipe for sloppy research and over–involvement of the author in the life being examined.

If you're interested in the notion of a core self as in Jung's typology, for instance, then this view is clearly less than satisfactory. Type, in fact, can give you an insight into a person's life otherwise not apparent. Peter Guralnick's acclaimed study of Elvis Presley (1994), for instance, indicates clearly to me preferences of ISFP for Presley and, with his background, helps put his life in context in terms of understanding his response to various situations, as well as indicatingt probably what might be a fact, and what might not.

Interestingly in the field of rock music, as in other fields, setting the record straight seems to be of importance. Al Kooper, a journeyman of seminal influence in the field as musician, producer, and arranger (e.g. Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone"; Blood Sweat & Tears; Lynyrd Skynyrd etc.). uses his revised and updated autobiography (1998) to tell it like it is, sounding much like an _STP as he names names and says what he did and didn't do as well as what others did (and didn't) . John Cale, of the Velvet  Underground and later solo escapades, does much the same thing in recounting his musical life, but from an _NTP perspective. These are two of a number of examples.

C.G. Jung didn't want a biography of him written at all and his somewhat  ghosted autobiography (the level of this depending on who you read), Memories, Dreams, Reflections was, like the C.G. Jung Institute in Zurich produced/approved under pressure in the knowledge that people would write and talk about him anyway. His life probably has more things in common with Kooper's experience with women, for instance that what one might think from this text.

Freud, of course, also has his hagiographers and his detractors and it's no surprise that the archives of both these men won't be opened to researchers for some years. That leaves some space for speculation by some writers on both men, in Jung's case notably by Richard Noll (e.g.1997), whose work suffers from inadequate comprehension of some of the symbolic material he addresses. Stevens (1999) is one who has addressed and refuted the more controversial of Noll's assertions.

There's a long list of biographers of Jung, each with their own purpose. Of Jung's supporters for instance, Barbara Hannah's work (1991)is genial and personal, Anthony Storr's (1995) somewhat psychoanalytical (as you would expect), Marie–Louise von Franz (1998) didn't really refer to Jung the person at all while Anthony Stevens (1999) chose to introduce Jung's ideas in parallel with his life, to my mind the most successful attempt at explaining this man, his life and his ideas. There are other biographies and snippets here and there from those who knew him, and those who did not. More often than not, though, Jung has been assessed in print by those who see him as a renegade from the true wisdom of Freud, a view unsustainable historically in my view, notwithstanding it being presented as history as it was.

Ronald Hayman is the latest cab off the rank in interpreting Jung. He seems to be a professional biographer, mostly literary people (Proust, Pinter, Beckett etc) with some other books on plays, acting and so forth (his original profession). This background didn't inspire confidence in this reader before opening the book, as it looked like it might be Jung as celebrity being examined.

In the age of the celebrity, of course, salacious material is of prime importance, and the publication of Hayman's biography of Jung was announced in part earlier this year by an excerpt published in the 'Age" Good Weekend entitled "On the couch with Carl"(Jung didn't use one, his patients sat on chairs) and focusing on Freud and his liaisons with women in a not entirely accurate fashion. Not a good omen.

The book itself comes with an X–Files  style cover, which blacks out Jung's face against a greenish background, suggesting that Jung's interest in the paranormal might be a focus. And it is, unfortunately without understanding of historical context. After all, Alfred Deakin, Prime Minister of Australia and contemporary of Jung, was a spiritualist.

Hayman's initial prose is quite startling: a feeling of urgency and action, before we get down to the regular details of Jung's early life, then, for some reason it disappears, an indication he may not be in control of his subject 

Here the interpretation is at once psychoanalytical and extremely critical. The young Jung, for instance, is  criticised for not valuing his father's intellect. But intellect is different for different people.Jung was unable to receive adequate answers from his father, a Minister of the Swiss Reform Church, on issues that concerned him, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. Understanding Jung as an INTP, as a matter of fact, would probably have helped. A lot of what is pathologised by Hayman in Jung's early life in particular seems normal INTP behaviour to me, other bits inferior function.

This sort of flavour extends throughout the book. Many of Hayman's judgements (usually brief sentences) are unsustainable to me or not really connected with the text and I believe this tactic detracts from the book. I didn't see any indication that he knew what he was talking about in terms of knowledge. It also becomes clearer the longer the book goes that he seems to be less sure about the psychological language he uses. This isn't the plain English version of Jung's life.

Hayman really struggles with much of the Freud–Jung period; the prose seems more of a cut–and–paste and for the first time you get the idea that he had a deadline to meet. He also does funny things like introducing William James as the elder brother of Henry James (conventionally you'd do the reverse) indicating he doesn't really understand the former's status in the world of psychology at all. Other commentators have done this period better.

Perhaps it's an indication of his lack of depth of historical knowledge and he would do well to read Patrick Humphries' work on the musician Nick Drake (1998) for the setting of context.This is a bit damning, really, as rock biographies are not exactly great literature. Humphries, however does deal sensitively with his enigmatic subject, while taking into account a wide range of perspectives and providing important relevant historical data. Hayman doesn't get near this at all and I get the idea that he doesn't understand Jung the person sufficiently and his work suffers accordingly.

Jung's creative illness and the lead-up to psychological types follow the same treatment. He compounds it all by having a number of sections in each chapter that don't really relate, sometimes different time periods. He doesn't understand type, which isn't unusual, as Storr himself states his own confusion on type elsewhere (1995) and even Andrew Samuels 1991) also falls into the trap of not having read or thought widely enough on Jung's development of ideas  on type. Marie Louise von Franz' Psychotherapy (1993) and C.G.Jung Speaking (1978) are useful texts in this respect. Hayman references the latter, but seems not to have looked at all of it.

Unhappily, the same method and result follow for Jung's activities in the 20s and 30s. His trips to Africa and to the Pueblo Indians in the US are dealt with rather perfunctorily, with some key insights being missed, one with regard to the African experience being surprisingly placed near the end of the book. Perhaps he read that information later, but didn't revise the text. Jung's association or otherwise with the Nazis has been better dealt with elsewhere in terms of presenting and interpreting the evidence. It's hard to follow Hayman's line of thought throughout, really.

All in all the biography seems to me to be a collection of stories, not particularly well connected and fitted in to preconceived judgements. I enjoyed more the latter parts of the book, which gave me some data I hadn't encountered before, but at the end of it the feeling is relief at completion and dissatisfaction about the work itself as an opportunity lost.

Hayman's overall themes are Jung and spiritualism, religion and the women in his life. In presenting these themes, he takes little account of either the development of Jung's thought (naturally involving some contradiction), the connection of Jung's definition of empiricism with the so–called new science and Jung's introversion, which he seems not to take seriously. He also can't seem to work his way through archetypes, which is not surprising as he doesn't reference Stevens' seminal work on that topic(1982), or, for that matter anything of Stevens' at all, which is a serious omission.

He picks up Storr's point about defining Jung's ideas as a religion, interestingly without reading his brief book on Jung.  The religion charge can be true for any other idea, including the MBTI, or economic rationalism, for that matter, and it's clear that Jung was a charismatic figure as well as obnoxious, reckless and destructive of others' lives at times.

What is also clear, but not commented on other than in terms of wealth, is that the group surrounding Jung are not your normal everyday people, quite eccentric in fact. It's a closed world where everybody psychologises everyone else. One has to see Jung in that context.

The bibliography (just over 6 pages) is somewhat short for a 450 page work,with no Stevens and very little Storr. It reveals secondary sources only; there's no indication anyone who knew Jung has been contacted by the author. The book also carries an endorsement by Storr; perhaps the language was familiar and the octogenarian was able to read in between the lines.

At some stage, someone will write a biography of Jung without all the pathologising. In order to do that, as I suggested above, there has to be some recognition that we are dealing with a different person associated with a group of people who seem to spend a lot of their time "talking shop".

David Tacey has suggested that a "rational mind" approach to Jung and his ideas is inadequate to the task of explaining Jung.That's true in some senses, but I can hear a conventional cop-out from a Jungian, and a limited definition of what "rational mind is". I think that the main difficulty is that people like Hayman don't take the trouble to work out what Jung actually did and said, and work through the inconsistencies and the deceptions like looking at any other person. Until we get to that, look at Stevens, Hannah, or Storr's brief view

Selected References:

---

Using knowledge to benefit people

Please contact me if you have any thoughts, questions or ideas about this article.

Where would you like to go now?
Top of Page	Library	Home Page