Social workers have significant power over the lives and fate of their patients. This is evidenced by the fact that social workers are capable of imposing, by force, outcomes on individuals they themselves would oppose. Their impositions often change the course of individual lives, sometimes but not always for the best.

Power is easily misused. There are conscious and unconscious motives at work in the power issue. For example there may be a lust for power, a need to be boss, and a self justified satisfaction working within the social worker.

The issue of power in social work can be a reflection of the shadow side. This is especially significant if the social worker is unable or unwilling to see that motives other than selfless ones are at work. It is in those cases that the shadow grows and influences the making of questionable decisions. The social worker often obsesses in objectivity and this becomes a sure sign of the darkness. The power shadow is not acute in the social worker who is indifferent and cynical and practices solely to make a living. Such a worker is deeply touched by neither the positive or negative aspects of his work.

Totally pure motivations for actions are out of the question for anyone in the helping professions. The worker may however make decisions that are helpful to the client despite the motivations underlying the decisions. We don’t have to be pure to be helpful and effective.

The collective view of social workers and other helping professions usually includes both a light and dark side. For example, clergymen are represented as hypocrites, teachers as childish, and physicians as quacks. These images are partly prejudicial but many times have partial validity. The negative collective image of the social worker reveals a prominent power shadow. This power shadow is evident, as the social worker interferes whenever possible, forcing his will on others without understanding the dynamics involved. Social workers often try to bring things into line using narrow, moralistic and bourgeois standards and are motivated by power and are insulted and malicious when this power is not acknowledged.

Most individuals in society attempt to distance themselves from unhappy, unfortunate and maladjusted people. Confronting the fundamental polarities of life, adjustment-maladjustment, social success-social failure, mental health-mental illness are but a few examples that require a special breed of person. Individuals who are members of the helping professions are attracted by such polarities and so, are very special.

There are parallels between the psychotherapist, physician and priest. It is the latter two professions that provide a professional and ethical model for psychotherapists.

The psychotherapist has a shadow side that has its origin in the doctor like character of the role. The part of medicine that is reflective of the light side is found in the Hippocratic Oath. The Oath portrays the practice of the physician as selfless, benevolent and sacred. Yet we all know that there is quite another side to the practice of medicine, and it can be likened to a charlatan. To explain the point a bit further, I will give an example. Patients come in droves to see the physician for many ills, many of which are better described as vague complaints such as headache, backache, fatigue, and stomach ache. The physician is frequently unable to find a real diagnosis to explain these general complaints and so he treats the patient symptomatically with pain pills, tranquilizers, and antacids with the hope that the symptoms of his patients will subside. If the patient gets well, the physician is lauded as a great healer. On the other hand, if the patient does not get better, the assumption is that the patient did not carry out the physicians orders. Either way the physician seems to come out on top. Now it is common knowledge that many complaints that people experience arise psychically, but the physician most often focuses treatment on the soma rather than the psyche and so misdiagnoses and mistreats

The ideals found in the priesthood also influence the analyst. Let me explain how this is so. Priests have high expectations to live up to! They of all people are expected to live by their faith. There is, however, the dark side who preaches, not because he believes but to gain power and importance. The congregation plays a key role in activating this dark side of the priest. They exert considerable pressure on the priest to preach somewhat the positive side of religion even when he is experiencing doubts. As a result the priest has to hide his authentic experience and put on a happy face for his congregation. The more insecure the priest is the more he functions at this level.

Since it is not possible for the priest’s behavior to always reflect the faith he represents, the shadow of perfection appears. This shadow is a constant companion for the priest. Often it is projected onto others in the ministry who appear different or extreme. Members of the priesthood all are quite fearful of the hypocritical, charlatan shadow and because of this fear, they identify themselves in more of a casual and social way.

There is great confusion in psychology and psychiatry as to what outcomes constitute success in treatment. Even using the best criteria possible, there is question about how treatment and treatment outcomes can be statistically qualified. However, because anyone can prove most anything utilizing the reductionistic science of medicine, there is fertile ground for the analyst’s charlatan, medical shadow to operate freely. The analyst could prove to any patient a need for extensive analysis, or to any person the need to become a patient.

The psychotherapist’s shadow is also influenced by characteristics held in common with the priesthood. Though there are many schools of thought in psychology, therapists do not subscribe to a specific faith or religion but they do adhere to a psychology they value from their personal and professional experience. Since no psychological approach can be proven by "science" the therapist and the priest share some common ground. Doubts creep in, and if the therapist stays with his profession he may become either a cynic or naive fraud. As a way of escape many therapist’s leave the profession to become researchers on the biochemistry of the brain.

Therapists like clergy work with their own souls and selves. The authenticity with which they experience the unconscious and the irrational are their tools. The psychotherapeutic shadow is tempted to represent these tools as more important than they are. Because of the therapist’s work with the unconscious, soul, psyche, the public expects them to know more about such matters than the common man. The temptation then of the therapist is to buy into this inflated image and give way to the charlatan and false prophet.

The analyst’s shadow is also affected by his own profession in addition to the professions of medicine and the priesthood. It is the job of helping his patients become more conscious. And so the ideal of the analyst becomes the maker of consciousness or the bringer of light. However, the opposite also exists within the unconscious and is constantly striving to undo the ideal. The therapist is then more frightened of the unconscious than is his patients. Just as the medical patient and the parishioner forces their healers and leaders into the charlatan role, so the analysand also encourages and pushes the analyst into the charlatan role. Usually the better the analyst thinks the therapy is going the more the charlatan role is working.

The fact that the competent and earnest analyst constantly probes the unconscious does not keep him from the effects of his shadow, for he like everyone else, has a blind spot. In such cases it is the enemy that should be carefully studied for appropriate insight into the matter.

Within the therapeutic relationship, when the analyst does look honestly at his shadow, he must be honest is sharing this with the analysand. This is crucial for therapy to proceed and demonstrates to the analysand that the shadow must be faced no matter how painful it is. Otherwise everyone is fooled and the analysis is worthless and harmful.

Everything anyone strives for consciously has a counterpart being constellated in the unconscious trying to do harm from that vantage point. There are however, less tragic aspects of the psychotherapist’s shadow. Charlatans can and often do alleviate suffering, sometimes more than respectable earnest physicians, even if the effects are temporary.

Some cultures seek to resolve the unresolvable issue of opposites by releasing the demands and strivings of the ego. Europeans will not do so, as they take the strivings of the ego seriously. Jung believed that the self can only appear if the ego is encountered in its tragedies. It is in the

depth of tragedy that meaning is true and real without the orientation of ego. Iin the honest attempt of both analyst and analysand to live consciously, by exploring the unconscious and the tragedies of it all, can they hope to encounter who and what they really are.

Analysts consciously desire to help people overcome their neurotic suffering and that desire motivates their choice of profession. However, this conscious desire calls up an opposite motivation in the unconscious - that of serving self. It is critical for the analyst to work with this shadow issue at great length so to not draw their patient into their own neurotic tendencies.

Often the shadow appears at the first therapy encounter. The patient, who is obviously suffering seeks healing. He wants to be freed from all problems, mental and physical and often hopes also to elicit super human powers within. Other times the patient comes to therapy with hopes of gaining proof of ill treatment in relationships and thereby to gain some retribution from this ill treatment.

These expectations of magic on the part of the patient toward the therapist influences the therapist to believe that he has such magical and super human powers. The therapist may seek prominent patients who can validate him as expert by paying his fee which he explains is necessary as a part of the therapy regimen. The patient will often seek a well-known analyst in order to boast of buying him as an employee. The patient is certain the analyst will be able to fix him since he is so expert.

From another perspective the analyst is responding from the chameleon within. He nods understanding to the patient, he gestures all knowingly of the pathology involved. The analyst feels powerful and as such works overtime seeing all his many patients and boasts of his long waiting lists. He finds himself unable to refer some of his patients unless he believes that he is the best.

An additional shadow issue arises frequently between the analyst in training and the master trainer. Several possibilities exist in this relationship. The trainee may remain in awe and a follower of his master trainer for life. The other possibility is that the trainee may seek to become a master magician himself, which leads to strong struggles for each. In such case the trainee will feel deep resentment toward the master, and the master will feel betrayed by the trainee.

The analyst-patient process sets up a framework for both shadows to also form a relationship. On the part of the patient who desires healing and magical powers, there is a psychic anti-therapeutic force called resistance that struggles against the desired outcome. The force of resistance is strong and aggressive in it’s attempt to destroy therapy. The patient’s resistance forms a partnership with the analyst’s charlatan shadow both of which needs to be considered in order to be understood and worked with.

The analyst furthers his shadow by over-diagnosing the seriousness of the problem to set himself up as the savior. The patient plays into this as he seeks to be passively rescued from his seeming hopelessness.

We are able to see how the expectations of both the analyst and patient interact and include not only the conscious motivations but the unconscious charlatan shadows. Therapy is affected by the acting out of these shadow figures from the very beginning if the therapist has not succeeded in recognizing his own neuroses.

There is some confusion on the part of therapists in the understanding between transference, counter-transference and relationship. All of these terms come to life very soon after analysis starts and the two psyches involved begin to affect one another.

In transference there is a projection onto the analyst by the analysand of something that is not really present. In other words the analysand sees in the analyst traits of individuals who have been significant in his life. Also the analysand may project some of his own psychic structures onto the analyst. These qualities that become projected onto the other are problematical in the analysand. The ideal is that the patient will have a transference, which the therapist will immediately identify and follow to its source. Thus the neurotic complex is reached.

Counter-transference is projection on the part of the analyst onto the analysand, which likewise has very little to do with him or may be a reply to the initial transference. It is important that the analyst identify this process immediately and correct it else the therapeutic process will halt.

Another aspect to therapy is relationship; a genuine encounter where the partner is seen for what he is. In relationship there is minimal transference occurring. In relationship the authentic feelings which exist are honored. The partners derive pleasure or displeasure from the other, they enjoy being with the other or doing something together, there is interest, exchange of emotions, feelings, and thoughts. A limit of relationship is that often the change of the psyche over time is not seen. Never is one static and so relationship requires relating not just to the individuals present but also to his past and future.

Creativity is a dimension of relationship especially with respect to the psyche. The psyche is full of possibilities, it constantly recreates itself and is always being re-created. Though the individual psychic potential is limited it is varied and has many sides.

When one is in relationships, in general and in therapy, it is helpful to allow creativity to move in. This means using imaginative images called fantasies to awake new potentials of the psyche. These images are not the same as transference, as they are related to the nature of the other person. An example of fantasies is seen in the parent-child relationship. The parent though possibly engaged in living vicariously through their child may be tapping into a basically correct view of the child’s potential. Even though there are strong ego-oriented components working, the fantasies serve the important function of stimulating the other’s imagination. This awakens life-psychic potentials.

The usefulness of fantasies in this way is with the symbolism evoked toward the entire person, with certain characteristics or in past or future possibilities. Some good examples to illustrate would be; I can see him as a teacher, she seems like the athletic type.

What then does transference, countertransference and relationship have to do in the process of analysis? Answers to this question are addressed by Jung in his views on action and reaction between two people. He viewed the relationship of two people as more than an agreement between their two consciousnesses. All that two people are affect the other. Though difficult to prove, all who study or observe interpersonal relations are amazed at how much occurs between two people than what is ever consciously expressed.

The analysand is expected to relate honestly all that is felt, thought, dreamed, and fantasized in order for the analyst to access shadow problems. The analyst does not share in kind, yet the analysand and the analysis is impacted by the dreams, fantasies, thoughts and feelings of the analyst. The analyst must therefore confront and deal with his own fantasies about his patients. To attempt to be objective as an analyst is self-deceptive and voids any attempts at therapy. The initial task for the analyst to undertake in therapy with patients is to examine his own fantasies.

Self examination of fantasies by the therapist is more difficult than identifying counter-transference. Therapists talk freely among themselves of transference and counter-transference issues, but little is admitted about patient fantasies and if so it is often mis-identified as an expression of counter-transference.

It is a certainty that the analyst develops fantasies about the client. These fantasies express the analyst’s view of the patient and revolve around the patient’s potential. Often the fantasies are negative, they become a fascination and satisfaction for the therapist. The negative fantasies are actual possibilities for development on the part of the patient. Thus the psychic energy of the analyst concentrates on the patients destructive side and stimulates its development. These negative fantasies often relate to suicide or psychosis and equate with negative faith often observed when teachers or parents predict a child will fail or get in trouble or end up in jail. Concentration on the negative possibilities can near compulsion with the analyst and relates to his destructive, charlatan side.

The analysand often encourages the therapist’s negative fantasies through his own negative fantasies of the analyst. The analysand’s fantasies often relate to the analyst’s shadow. The analysand may see the analyst as a self serving, money-hungry person who is disinterested in his patients making fun of them to his colleagues. These negative fantasies interfere in the ability of the analyst to help the analysand.

Positive fantasies on behalf of the analysand by the analyst can also be destructive to the analysand. Since it is difficult for an analyst to just be in the present moment with the analysand without considering his future. So the analyst might fantasize the analysand as cured or changed. Without these positive fantasies the analysand is not stimulated to develop fully. The danger here is when the positive fantasies would benefit analyst more than analysand and especially if it would not be to the analysand’s benefit in concentrating on such fantasy.

We see three elements considered in therapy; transference, counter-transference and relationship. It becomes problematic to try and explain relationship in terms of transference and counter-transference as they are different elements entirely. Each element plays their role and if properly identified and contexed they effect helpful and successful therapy.

The destructive, charlatan shadow of the analyst can show itself with respect to the patient’s life outside of analysis. The analyst often would like the patient totally under his control in a kind of exclusive relationship. To accomplish this the analyst has a negative view of the interpersonal relationships the patient has out of therapy. To further this the analyst works out through fantasy only the destructive sides of the patient’s relationships.

The analyst must carefully guard against the tendency for the analytical relationship becoming hostile toward other relations. Often by analysis other relationships have been impacted negatively and to the detriment of the patient.

Another tendency of the analyst to accomplish exclusivity in relationship is to avoid group therapy in the treatment regime. This is done with the claim that such groups distract the patient from personal analysis. Under this guise the therapist, if consistent, would order the patient to leave their spouse and children since they too are distractions.

The analyst extends his charlatan shadow by living vicariously through his patient. When all of an analyst’s patients share the drama of their lives the analyst may become completely absorbed in his work with his patients. His own private life can take a back seat, dry up and stagnate to the point he is content with the lives of his patients.

This condition becomes dangerous both to the analyst and patient. The analyst, drawing his life from the lives of his patients looses his vitality and creativity. The patient may also cease from living genuine lives, rather they live only to share their experiences with the analyst.

The analyst who is fully capable of helping his patients must be out and about living his own life in an authentic and whole hearted manner. This would give credence to Jung’s belief that an analyst can give only what he has.

Sexuality is initially explored from a biological and religious perspective. Then it is looked at further from the position of relationship. Finally it is considered from the perspective of therapy.

From a biological reality, sexuality is linked to reproduction. However, the two are actually separate. This separation is present even in the simplest of creatures where reproduction involves division and sexuality is seen as the unification of two organisms. The idea that man or woman desires conception with every sexual act is not scientific. This suggestion may have its roots in Christianity and especially Catholicism, which made it morally necessary to couple sexuality and reproduction. Modern theology is accepting of sexuality in a different way. Sexuality is best understood as the expression of a relationship between two people.

Every relationship involving humans includes everything from body to soul. This is seen between man-woman, parent-child, woman-woman and man-man. Physical contact and stimulation is prerequisite to the development of the body and psyche.

In the man-woman relationship sexuality is the physical expression of the basic and intense relation between masculine and feminine. A child is not the point, the relationship is; the child is a natural by-product of the relationship.

Since the therapeutic setting requires a relationship between two people there must be a physical component as much as a psychic one.

Every relationship has potential for both a negative and a positive aspect; love and hate, or destruction. This includes the aspect of sexuality. Sexuality motivated from hate, but understood as love destroys people and can destroy patient and analyst in psychotherapy.

Sexual fantasies are common in therapy. Both patient and analyst have sexual fantasies which are usually labeled transference and counter-transference, but are more properly identified as physical expressions of relationship. In this view it should be clear that relationship always has the duality of love and hate with one or the other dominating.

From the Jungian perspective sexual fantasies are a normal part of the therapeutic relationship. Central to therapy is identifying the expression as either negative or positive. If the sexuality is a destructive force the analyst must explore it both in himself and the patient. Otherwise both parties may be destroyed by the living out of the sexual compulsion.

Should the reverse be true and the sexual expression be reflective of a positive relationship its effect on therapy should also be positive. These fantasies can be continued safely as the urge to live them out would not be so strong. By all means they should not be lived out, as the object of therapy is not the relationship. It is the establishment of a new psychic orientation and therapy is only the milieu in which the healing process occurs.

The Jungian psychologist sees sexuality as a symbol of the unification of opposites, therefore as non-sexual. As such sexuality in therapy must be identified, understood and experienced by patient and analyst.

The analyst’s charlatan shadow often side steps the required lived aspect of a positive sexual fantasy in therapy because of the danger that the constellation of sexuality harbors. Instead the analyst immediately will focus on the transcendental aspect as soon as sexual feelings begin. He thus destroys possibilities of the relationship and dealing with potential destructive tendencies in himself and the patient.

Sexuality, though a symbol, must be lived in therapy for truth to occur. The experience is blocked by psychological and philosophical realities. Often it is blocked by focusing on the symbol before it is lived out. The therapist must be able to understand the symbol and share in its experience prior to focusing intellectually on the symbol.

Homosexuality is explored developmentally, from a transpersonal perspective. It is presented as an element of relationship and therapy.

Homosexuality seen in the young child as sexual play does not assume a clear preference with respect to sex. However very early the homosexual component recedes and heterosexuality steadily gains prominence. In some people the homosexual side remains close to the surface and can be activated under certain circumstances. Psychologists have postulated that homosexuality is often sublimated in those cases into roles and careers of interest in young men and students.

The homosexual is defined as one who rejects the desire for union with the opposite sex. He is fearful and thus inadequate for a contra-sexual unity. The homosexual then channels his bodily energies and feelings into those of the same sex. The heterosexual desires and needs become repressed.

In human relationship, there is inherently a physical aspect. This is true regardless of same or different sex partners. Relationship includes the physical aspect and individuals feel something physical for one another. This bodily feeling in relationship between two members of the same sex often gets characterized as latent homosexuality and pathology is then inferred.

Sublimated or latent homosexuality is often incorrectly diagnosed. It is possible for individuals in relationship to experience a more unconditional love for each other rather than be demonstrating sublimated homosexuality . To illustrate, assume you have a friend, (same sex), that you like. Now, begin to get in touch with your feelings related to your friend. You enjoy being with your friend, going places together, doing things together, feeling the rhythm of the energies of one anothers physicality. You experience physical well-being in the bodily presence of your friend, you find the body of your friend a pleasant experience This experience is a normal aspect of the relationship and does not suggest latent homosexuality.

Socrates believed that homosexuality is a higher form of love, separate from the reproductive drive and therefore purer in nature and more worthy of mankind. Historically most Northern cultures suppress the bodily aspects of relationship from childhood on. Southern cultures are somewhat more open to bodily contact such as embracing, holding hands and so on, even for males, in certain situations.

Because analysis uses relationship for therapy one would expect the constellation of bodily feelings between therapist and patient (same or different sex). As soon as bodily feelings are felt, the analyst often becomes fearful. His fear prompts him to evade the signals or interpret them on the level of the spiritual masculine or feminine. The therapist can also interpret latent homosexuality (especially if there has been a sexual dream including the therapist). Another option for the therapist is to interpret the patient’s fantasy or dream from the perspective that it is the internal analyst or his own therapeutic factor that he is fantasizing. What the therapist may not stop to consider is that the patient may need to draw closer to the therapist and that he may need to be more nurturing to his patient.

The competent therapist must recognize the constellation of bodily feelings in therapy and allow them to come forth in order to accurately interpret the appropriate way to proceed with therapy. Failure to practice in this manner may lead to serious consequences for both parties. There may be hatred and rejection, broken analysis or inappropriately concluded analysis with paranoia. The homosexuality of therapist and patient will have been repressed out of fear, and each will feel persecuted by the other. The analyst’s charlatan shadow has raised it’s head again!

In the course of analysis, it is necessary for the analyst to confront hard realities if the patient is to gain from the experience. Confrontation is difficult even for the most expert and it is often in this situation that the charlatan-shadow tempts the analyst to avoid these interpersonal requirements.

The analyst is often able to see where the patient may be vulnerable to experience great pain and thus is obligated to point out the psychological implications to the patient. This can be accomplished in a satisfying manner for both analyst and patient if the analyst proceeds in a genuine, caring manner. It is the Charlatan-shadow however, that often causes the analyst to capitalize on the need to make certain observations in a hurtful, demoralizing manner in order to elevate his own position of power. If this becomes the case, usually the analyst will very quickly realize his error, and will experience guilt and remorse as he realizes what he has done.

Another more dangerous intervention is using flattery to address the analyst’s unpleasant observations. In the short term, this may satisfy both parties, however, the benefits are short lived. The patient’s self- esteem may rise for the moment but he becomes increasingly dependent on his therapist, as he is able to see something good where there is the appearance of something less. The following illustrations will clarify :

1. Use of the queen archetype with a domineering, aggressive patient to explain these aspects of the feminine as an expression of her queenly nature.

2. Explaining a lack of ability in interpersonal relationships, in loving and being loved as an aspect of introversion.

3. Interpreting a selfish inability to express respect for an aging mother as freeing oneself from the mother’s animus or soul.

4. Using a difficult father-child relationship to interject the need to kill the basic paternal father within.

When the analyst proceeds from this perspective in therapy, the potentials for the patient to effect more meaningful relationships and outcomes are bypassed. If this flattery predominates as the therapeutic approach, the patient’s distorted perceptions will carry him further and further from truth, and will be destructive for both him and his environment.

When the therapist uses flattery in place of honest confrontation of real and valid complexes the patient will respond in turn with flattery toward the analyst. Therapy will disintegrate into a superficial game without value for development of the patient or therapist’s psyche.

The concept of self is identified as central in Jungian analysis. The self which is identified by Christianity as the Christ within is opposite the ego which equates with worldliness. The ego is associated with all that is external whereas the self relates to all that is within and to the eternal aspects of the psyche.

The experience of the self and ego are vitally important to successful analysis. It is in this experience that the charlatan-shadow may again makes it’s appearance. There are occasions in the experience of life that the issues of the self and the issues of the ego are in opposition. When one takes a stand and chooses against social norms in favor of the self, severe conflicts may arise.

Of course the analyst is aware of this, but sometimes this truth is used to justify cases of wrong doing on the part of the patient. Take for example a case of divorce. Utilizing the concept of self, the analyst can interpret the action as liberation of the individual from societal norms through self-realization rather than as an attack against the spouse. Just about any ill- willed action can be rationalized using concept of self as a justification. Through this therapeutic endeavor, the analyst can momentarily ease the patient’s guilt and he can appear as a magic healer. In the end, however, the patient has not experienced cure but deception at the expense of truth.

When the analyst functions from the position of his false-prophet-with- sorcerer shadow, he compromises the patients religious need with the illusion of transcendental knowledge. He can establish meaning in every event through his interpretations of the unconscious. There is absolutely nothing that the analyst cannot shed light upon, and so tragedy and horror disappear. For a brief time the patient will feel secure and the analyst will feel he is all powerful in his magical abilities.

This by far does not do justice to the many faces of the analyst’s charlatan-shadow that may appear. When the shadow does appear it is in conjunction with the patient’s destructive tendencies regarding therapy as the two always act upon the other. If the analyst is to be helpful he must be honest in recognizing his shadow issues before he will be able to work successfully with the patient’s shadow. This admission of honesty must be made to the patient and include how it has affected both parties, and also the part the patient has played. It is essential for the analyst to be honest in these matters because it exemplifies the process for the patient and encourages the patient to proceed likewise.

In order to move further into the shadows of the psychotherapist and the social worker the question is once again asked, what drives and motivates these individuals to want to help the sick, suffering, unhappy, and outcast? The answers to this question can be found by returning to the profession of medicine and the helper/healer role of the doctor.

The misuse of power in the field of social welfare work is clearly obvious to those in the field, and has been established previously for those who are not. But the field of social work is not alone in the misuse of power, it is also present in the medical profession.

Medicine has made great strides in the past century. Many diseases that once were fatal are now extinct or treatable. Surgical techniques mend broken bodies, and save or prolong life. Organs can be replaced. Limits to medicine are barely visible except on the distant horizon. With the modern tools and medical bureaucracies one would naturally deduce that doctor’s have power and that power has potential for positive and negative uses.

As the history of medicine is traced to it’s origin with the medicine man it is identifiable that even then there was great power attached to the position, and that the power was retained by all available means. The origin of such great power was attributable to the fact that the medicine man was also a priest with linkage to higher forces. Historically it is confirmed that among those with access to the gods some have misused their power.

As the history of medicine has progressed through the centuries, the doctor was no longer linked with the priesthood. Nevertheless he has managed to retain his status and his almost god-like power. The question arises as to whether the influence of the doctor is associated with his scientific knowledge or to psychological power. Approached from a psychological perspective the dynamics are observed that set the doctor up with considerable power. Healthy people have no need of a doctor. They can go about living their lives without outside assistance. This changes dramatically when one becomes ill. Suddenly they are helpless, fearful and dependent. They regress to a childlike state with supreme trust and faith in their doctor.

The doctor becomes very powerful under these circumstances. He is the patients source of hope. He is respected, feared, admired and sometimes also hated, but the patient is totally and completely dependent upon the doctor to heal him. The doctor knows between the ears that his patients are persons just like himself. If honest the doctor must admit that it is often impossible not to have a negative attitude toward his patients. After all when patients are sick physically they are often somewhat repulsive. Combined with their passivity, dependency and regressed behaviors, it is clear that they could be seen in a negative way. What is observed is a distinct polarity between the sick, fearful, regressed patient on one end and the revered, coolly aloof but courteous doctor at the other end.

The relationship of "healer-patient" is a basic archetypal human relationship. In this relationship the person sees and behaves in line with something deep within himself, but is essentially the same plan for all men.

In order to determine if power exists in the healer-patient archetype, it is necessary to see the many meanings power has. Within a human relationship there are two subjects each relating to the other as a subject. When power is the stronger factor in the relationship one subject relates to the other, not as a subject, but as an object. This of course cannot succeed unless one of the subjects is willing to assume a passive stance and become the object. When such a situation occurs, the subject welding the power begins to feel overly important and overly responsible. Another meaning of power is observed in the individual who sees himself as god-like, and so begins to act like a god. He begins to dominate others and his misuse of power is dangerous to himself and others. Napoleon and Hitler were examples of individuals who deified themselves, and we are all aware of the evil this kind of power produced.

The manner is which society elevates the physician above others is also an expression of power. After all he has life and death, sickness and health in his hands. This phenomena is easily identified in books, films and TV shows that feature doctors. In the hospital setting the interplay of reverence for the physician and the power he holds becomes obvious. Even though staff , students, and patients are fearful, and intimidated by such a powerful figure, at the same time they admire and honor the physician as a great healer. Young aspiring assistants follow after him in hopes of becoming like him.

On closer examination of this picture, there seems to be something terribly wrong with so great a power emanating from a doctor. Such a show of power might be expected and admired of a politician, leader, manager, or officer but a doctor! This abuse and misuse of power to the harm and detriment of staff and patient is cheap, despicable, and clearly out of taste for a physician.

If power were inherent in this healer-patient archetype as it appears in the King-subject archetype, than the exercise of power as seen by the physician would not appear so base and immoral. This is because an archetype is a basic reality and as such does not appear out of character.

Neither does it seem likely that the physician is behaving toward others he is in relationship with as mere objects. After all the physician chose his profession out of a desire to heal the sick. Even the suggestion that the physician deifies himself doesn’t seems to fit, as it is not petty to try and become like God. Actually none of these descriptions of power aptly apply to the problem of power within the physician.

The splitting of the archetype provides an explanation of the power problem in the physician. But before one can comprehend the splitting of the archetype it is necessary to explore some more into the nature of the archetype.

By definition, the archetype is a potentiality of behavior that is innate within human beings. It is a way of reacting to common life situations. These reactions consist of opposites or dualities. There is question about how this came to be, but it seems that both poles are within the same individual. One extreme or pole cannot exist without the other extreme/pole. This duality can be demonstrated in the parent-child relationship and the man-woman relationship. For example, the woman has within herself the potential of motherly behavior. The child awakens this behavior in the mother, yet it suggests that the child is already actually within the mother. So it seems more appropriate to refer to archetypes not as the mother, child or father archetype but rather the mother-child, and the father-child archetype.

This concept of archetype has application to the power problem often seen in the physician.

One could assume that there are no separate healer or patient archetypes. That in fact the healer and the patient are two poles of one aspect of being. When a person becomes ill the patient-healer archetype is established. The patient seeks external healing but at the same time the healer within his own self is activated. One could say that the healer within is the inner physician, and this inner physician has every bit as much ability to heal the person as the external physician. In those individuals who do not get well, or seem to want to get well, it might be said that their inner healer or physician is weak. Healing may well require the potions of the external physician, but no healing would occur without the complimentary workings of the internal doctor.

There is the archetype of the wounded healer. This implies that within the physician there is not only the healer but the patient as well. There are many mythological references to this phenomena. Aesculapius’s teacher, Chiron, suffered from incurable wounds, and the dog-goddess with two names. Guta was death and Labartu was healing. In India, Kali was goddess of pox and also the curer as well.

The concept of this splitting of the archetype brings some clarity to the problem of power experienced by the doctor of medicine. Regarding the opposites with respect to the archetypes, the ego is poorly equipped to tolerate such ambiguities. It seeks clarity in these issues and insists on a splitting of the poles of the archetypes. One way this is accomplished is by repressing one extreme so that it becomes a part of the unconscious. When this occurs, the repressed aspect gets projected externally. In terms of the patient and the physician, this means that the patient can project his inner healer onto the physician and the physician can project his inner wounds onto the patient. When this occurs, the patient assumes a passive role, expecting the physician to heal him without any active involvement of his part.

Within the physician we see the reverse situation occurring. He is strong, well, and invulnerable to illness. Patients are sick, weak and ill. He is unable to identify with his own wounds, (the patient within), and so cannot activate the healer within his patients. Thus the classic example of the patient who is sick and helpless and the doctor who is well and all powerful.

Once the physician has split the patient-healer archetype, he experiences no relief from his patient’s sickness, and wounds. Like it of not, they belong to him as well. It is in this way that the split archetype attempts to reunite, and it is for this need of reunification that many doctors choose their profession in the first place.

This reunification of poles often takes place through the physicians use of power as he relates to patient as object. Unable to see his own wounds and vulnerabilities to illness, he objectifies illness and projects it onto the patient. He is left to think of himself more highly than he ought, and in the process becomes more distant from his own weaknesses. He has become powerful through his failure psychologically rather than through strength. The process that occurs with the archetype is that it is repressed, then projected and then reunited through power.

It is not certain if all archetypes are so unified by power, but many are. Another example for further clarification would be the mother-daughter archetype. Here we see the all powerful, controlling mother and the dependent, passive daughter. The mother is unable to identify or acknowledge the daughter within her own being that needs the nurturence of her own mother, nor is the daughter able to see the mother in her that is capable of nurturing and advising her inner child. Here the desire for power and submission are a means for reuniting the archetypical poles that have been split.

The use of power to unify the split archetype has a positive side. Here the physician is making some attempt at reunification of the split archetype. After all this is why he was drawn to his profession to begin with. Better this than the physician that doesn’t really care at all to even try to control his patients, as this pole of the archetype is so repressed that projection is not an option. Or the other possibility is that he chose his profession so casually that he has never been concerned with the basic problem of the physician.

There is also a very negative side of the split archetype of the wounded healer, and it can be harmful to both patient and doctor. That is, the healer within the patient is never activated or at best greatly reduced. The physician believes that he has the power to make this healing factor in the patient activate. In this respect the physician equates himself more as priest than physician, as it is the priest who is the divine healer.

More careful examination of the wounded healer reveals more than just identification with the individual patient. That is missing the boat! and is based on ego weakness and is a shallow, external reunification of the split archetype. In reality, the symbology of the wounded healer runs much deeper and is at the very root of why this person became a physician in the first place. To experience the wounded healer within, the physician is sorely touched by his potential for degeneration of his own body and mind. He has this wounded part within himself and feels it in the deepest sense. This unites him with his patient as he actually experiences within himself that which he treats within his patient. The sad fact is that not all physicians who have chosen to experience both poles of the archetype are able to sustain the experience.

Perhaps, the very best example of the unsplit healer-patient archetype was the good old country doctor. He made his home visits without any pretense of power. He knew all his patients and their families as well. Just his presence within the family circle, or the gentle laying of his hands of the fevered brow would make everyone breathe and feel better. He often even used alcohol to help relieve the pain he constantly suffered as he experienced the completeness of his archetype. In truth, it matters not what era, society or condition medicine is practiced as to whether the physician is more able to experience the completeness of the wounded- healer archetype. The splitting of the archetype or the living of it’s completeness is an inner event for the individual physician dependent on his psychological development and potentials.

A final clarification is made in the image of Jesus, the Christ. In him the archetype of the wounded-healer is the most apparent. Not only did he heal physically, but transcendently of death and sin. This was possible because within himself he consumed all sin and death. Never is it recorded that he used power in any way as he went about his healing mission. Always he referred to the God as the source of all power. By any comparison the physician is microscopic in his role in sickness, health, life and death. He must however strive to maintain awareness that with all his technical know how and body of knowledge, his greatest challenge is to evoke the healing factor within his patient. In order to accomplish this task, he must activate the healing factor within his own self by experiencing sickness always as an existential potential. If he tries to accomplish this by power, he will be less effective in his outcome. Failure to involve himself at all in this matter leaves him least effective of all.

There has been some controversy about which helping professions should practice within the medical model and which should not. Some believe that only medically trained professionals should become psychotherapists. By the theories presented, another way of expressing a prevailing view is that only those who are involved in the archetype of the wounded healer should become psychotherapists. The rationale presented was that doctors are concerned with sickness and health and the therapist is concerned with the soul and salvation of the psyche. So the medically trained therapist would help the patient regain health and the psychologically trained therapist would help the psyche lead the self toward a more meaningful life.

A more realistic view might be that all humans struggle and search for self and meaning, and that help should not be limited to specialists, but that anyone who is able might help another in his quest. Some whose quest is more earnest and desperate feel called to take a more active role in the process.

The social worker is also one who is motivated to heal sick social conditions. Though the training for social work is not medically oriented, it does hold common ideals with medicine. So in all of these fields, medicine, psychotherapist, and social work all share in the archetype of the wounded healer. All are affected by the polarities of the archetype, which may result in repression and projection of one extreme, and result in the misuse of power.

The profession of teaching is closely akin to the split archetype that is observed in medicine and other helping professions. Here the student and teacher relationship is observed, where the student is creative and open and the teacher is all knowing, often assuming a fairly rigid stance. There is the child that constantly pushes for life with all of it’s infinite possibilities within every adult. This child within helps to keep the adult childlike in curiosity and zest for life. Just as the doctor must have a living relationship with the pole of illness, the teacher must have this same relation to the childishness within.

Without this vital connection of the teacher with the inner child, the teacher becomes polarized with the side of the all knowing, all powerful adult educator. The student is projected as without knowledge or the desire for knowledge and the teacher becomes impressed with power. This power is then misused to intimidate, and punish the student.

Just as we have seen in the split archetype of the wounded healer, the teacher who has polarized into the all-knowing, all-powerful has cut off the connection to the child-like qualities within. Therefore it is impossible to elicit the knowing adult within the child. Teaching requires more than pouring knowledge into an individual, it requires awakening within the student the desire for knowledge and this cannot be accomplished unless the teacher is aware of the yearning, inquiring child within. It is sad that the modern educational system with all of its regimens and requirements does not encourage the spontaneity necessary to facilitate the childlike qualities of the teacher.

In order to understand the basic problems of the psychotherapist, the destructive urge must be explored. We see this urge rampant in the stage of youth, here it is straightforwardly obvious. Throughout history destruction has existed in this stage of life as a world wide phenomena, and is a characteristic of the stage.

The attempts of youth at destruction affects them on an individual level and society at large. An excellent example is the way young people drive which places not only their lives but the lives of others in danger.

Explanations for why man has such a destructive urge are numerous and range from Marxists suppression and exploitation to futurism and zoological theories. Such theories are limited in explaining self-destructive acts. Jung however, offers some more realistic insights into man’s destructive tendencies.

Jung’s concept of the shadow is basic to understanding the matter of destruction among mankind. Jung describes a personal, collective, and archetypal shadow. These are all parts of one shadow, yet each is diverse within itself.

The personal shadow is comparable to Freud’s concept of the unconscious. It involves the individual and includes everything that has been repressed throughout a life experience. That is, it contains everything the ego and the super-ego does not wish to remember on a conscious level. Common content for repression are social taboos, painful experiences, sexual perversions and aggression. Within itself, the contents of the personal unconscious may not be harmful.

The collective shadow refers to the part of the shadow that contains the culturally unacceptable content of the specific individual. It is the counter-part of the collective ideal, just as the personal shadow is the other side of the personal ideal, that must be repressed. It is always the opposite polarity of what is acceptable by a given society the individual is identified with. So that if a society has as its ideals such things as honesty, charity, purity, and liberalism, one can be assured the collective shadow contains the aspects of dishonesty, hate, sexuality, and conservativism.

Excellent examples of the collective shadow are seen in the historical development of the Christian church, and the Jewish race. By examining the ideals represented by these examples one is able to identify the elements comprising the dark sides of each.

The purpose of both personal and collective shadows, is to destroy the ideals of both the individual and the culture. This function is necessary on a repeated basis because the ideals, both individual and collective are deceptive and polarized. Without the continual work of the shadow, neither the individual nor society would be able to experience evolution.

A third shadow is known as the archetypal shadow. Even though there is a connection between the three aspects of shadow, the archetypal shadow is distinct. Here the term shadow is not an apt term as it is not created by an opposing ideal. The archetypal shadow is a primary concern and might preferably be called Evil except for the moral connotation it elicits. It exists as an essential characteristic of mankind. It is more than the absence of good and therefore Evil is independent of all else. Historically Evil has been symbolized as the Devil, black sun, Shiva, Loki, and Beelzebub, all of whom were gods and goddesses associated with the dark side.

Freud and Jung both identified this destructive instinct within man as the movement toward death. Evil is essential to all, not dependent on an opposing Good. It is that force that just is, it is inside all humans and makes itself known as the murderer and suicider.

To better understand the concept of Evil it is helpful to explore the myths in which both the Devil and a young person appear. Through the symbolism of these myths, it seems that a truth appears that illuminates the purpose of Evil. This truth is further supported by Biblical accounts of the Devil as being one of God’s sons, even having been created by God. As such, the existence of Evil provides an opportunity for a young person to confront himself consciously, and through this consciousness, move toward a state of wholeness.

As humans, in the earth we want to think critically about ourselves, the world and God. Man seeks knowledge but even that is not enough. He wants the freedom to choose his own way in the earth. It is through this freedom to choose the negative that man is able to also choose the positive.

During the phase of youth, the freedom to choose is limited because the tools needed to do so are assumed from parents. In order for the adolescent to develop himself psychologically, he must experience denial and destruction, so that he will have freedom to choose consciously his own values or unconsciously live out the values of his parents. In this process of discovering freedom there is also the possibility of destruction. To prevent this eventuality, the youth must not identify with the Evil (Devil). The sense of self needs to remain intact but detached to maintain some sense of objectivity. In reality this means that the healthy youth who involves himself in destructive behaviors, is aware that the behavior is evil and will not become a pattern of behaving.

Youths who do not directly engage in evil behaviors can encounter destruction through imagery or identification with the imagery of another person. For example, stories have been written with themes of violence, destruction and evil and stories with these themes have been read and experienced vicariously. Movies, television and theater are also excellent ways one can identify with the forces of destruction and live the experience vicariously.

Some youth are successful in their encounter with Evil by using philosophy and religious art as a means to integrate the experience. However, there are many who are unable to deal with their experience, because Evil is so threatening. They deal with their anxieties by projecting this dark side onto the adults in their lives. For the psychologically healthy youth, these projections are not permanent. Those whose young lives are wounded by unhealthy environments are apt to project the dark side of destruction and Evil onto their environment. They are unable to continue their psychic development and integrate the social aspects of their environment. The external world takes the blame for all the difficulties the youth encounters as the young person rationalizes his behaviors.

The social worker who is faced with trying to work with a young person caught in this pattern is caught in a no-win situation. All attempts to do any good thing for the youngster is interpreted as evil. Any attempt by the social worker to encourage the youth to assume some responsibility for himself, is received by the youth as a lack of interest and desire to help on the part of the worker.

Final outcomes to the encounter with Evil and destruction by the young person are influenced by their ability and opportunities for experiencing conflicts on an internal level through fantasy. Since the majority of youth are not provided the stimulation and encouragement to confront their conflicts on the level of fantasy and symbol they will live out their inner experience. The behavior that results will be either antisocial or criminal. As these young people become adults their tendency is to perpetuate this process all over again in their children.

Young people who are indifferent or mentally dull are not confronted in the same way by Evil. Their contact with the force is superficial and so they remain unaffected. It is the youth who is deeply involved in these forces, who is unable to come to terms with the internal nature of the problem. As a result they cause more misery and suffering for themselves.

The problem with the archetypical shadow persists into the adult phase of life. Over and over again the individual succumbs to the destructive urge within and everything one tries to do in life including relationships with loved ones and the environment are affected. The psychotherapist is especially prone to fall victim to the archetypical shadow. The more the therapist works on his consciousness and helps his patients do the same, the greater his unconscious side becomes. Said another way, the more light one shines on one part the darker the other parts become. Because the therapist expends so much time and energy consciously focusing on the good of his patients, an equal amount of evil and destruction is being set into motion.

The psychotherapist is prepared for the inherent dangers in the profession by having both a solid base of knowledge and supervised practice. Yet it is this very background that prompts him to develop a kind of objectivity with which he deals with patients, and at the same time blocks him from seeing his own darkness. This problem is further complicated by the fact that he spends so much of his time and energy working with the Evil and destruction of his patients that he is unable to assess and work on these same issues within himself.

Impacting the therapist even further is the fact that many schools of psychotherapy do not include the concept of archetypal destructiveness at all. Many programs are focused on a more mechanistic, reductionistic and objective framework. Even in Jungian psychotherapy the emphasis is more on the personal and collective shadow issues rather than the archetypal shadow.

When these limitations are coupled with the fact that the model for psychotherapy is of a medical nature, the problems for the therapist are intensified. Here we recall the tendency to repress one side of the healer-patient archetype and then project it onto patients. The therapist’s power play in this situation attempts to help him heal this split. In his attempt to help patients become more conscious, he becomes more unconscious. When this occurs the charlatans of the false prophet and priest create fertile ground for the shadow of Evil and destruction.

Even when psychotherapists are acutely aware of their own vulnerabilities where shadow issues are concerned they often oversimplify the solutions. They put in place every external mechanism possible to safeguard them from the pitfalls. For example, they attempt to overcome the problem through careful attention in their education. They study their dreams and so on. The weakness here is that the ego will interpret dreams and analysis issues to its advantage. There is no magic formula that if applied will assure objectivity, skill or conscious sincerity on the part of the psychotherapist.

Within the profession of psychotherapy conflicts abound. In this arena little consciousness would seem to apply to the way these conflicts are handled. And so the question arises, is it possible to achieve the undertaking of analyzing the soul or is analysis doomed to failure?

Despite all the emphasis on the negative aspects of psychotherapy and the psychotherapist, many therapists do excellent work and help people experience psychological healing. Even though there are therapists who do damage to their patients, that does not devalue the profession as a whole.

As mentioned in summaries of earlier chapters, if the therapist is to be helpful it is necessary for him to be authentic and open with both himself and the patient. This is because therapy constitutes a joint relationship concerning both the positive outcomes and the problems. However this honesty and openness is ideal and in reality therapy seems to be an unequal relationship. Isolation on the part of the therapist is a contributing factor in the one-sidedness of therapy. Even though there is required supervision of student therapists, what transpires between patient and therapist is highly dependent on the therapist. It becomes increasingly difficult for the patient to affect any personal response on the part of the therapist, as over time the therapist develops a style that protects him from penetration. The patient becomes the one with the pathology and the therapist is the healthy doctor.

In some cases the therapist is able to integrate both the wounded patient and the healer. The therapist who can concentrate on his own consciousness as it appears in the difficulties of his patient is indeed a patient and healer within himself.

Some of the problems of analysis have been purported to be solved by requiring the analyst to have his practice controlled or supervised by a colleague throughout his entire career. This solution does not stand up to scrutiny. There are problems of how much and what the analyst decides to report to his colleague of the sessions. Often the nature of therapy is so close between patient and analyst that even if information is reported, it can be easily misinterpreted. Even the idea that analysts should have ongoing training analysis throughout their career is questionable. If the analysist could find a therapist of his same school, there are other conflicts of interest; rivalry, concerns of equal standing and position, age considerations, and the dependency such an arrangement would create.

Interacting in joint discussion of cases with a group of colleagues is of little value. In this situation, little depth is accomplished as each member attempts to impress his colleagues in any number of ways. How well they can present their case, how well the case is being handled, and appearing authentic and self-critical become issues. Therapy groups for analysts also fail to be beneficial for resolving shadow problems as analysts are too guarded in this situation.

For those analysts who are unable to confront and deal with their issues of shadow, all of these suggested methods will not provide adequate assistance. What may be required is for the analyst to seek outside of their profession for assistance with their shadow problems. The analyst’s shadow problems do not constitute an illness, rather a cut-off from self, which now ceases to bother him. In fact he functions from a position resembling inner peace. It is his close associates and loved ones who seem to experience a sense of bewilderment and disorganization.

At this point it is impossible for the analyst to resolve his problems from within. More analyzing only compounds the shadow, as he becomes less and less able to see the situation.

In order for most analysts to continue to grow personally on a psychological level and deal with their own shadow issues, they must be involved in friendships. These friendships need to be with peers who are on equal footing with one another. This type of friend will be able to challenge and confront on all levels, requiring one another to see both the positive and negative, the just and unjust, the truth and the ridiculous, all in a loving way. These types of relationships can also be found among family and with marriage partners.

It is not possible for the analyst to formulate such a friendship with a former patient, as often they attempt to do. The patient will always see and relate to the analyst as such and will not succeed in moving the analyst beyond his own defenses. Often the analyst resorts to treating family and friends as patients, continuously analyzing them. This of course annuls any benefit that might be derived from those relationships.

The other option of benefit for the analyst is relationship with children. No one can quite so readily influence another than a child, whose spirit is so free and spontaneous, innocent and authentic. They have the ability to illuminate the analyst’s shadow and pull it out into the light of day.

If the analyst does not engage in genuine friendships, he indeed must have special abilities not to become caught up into shadow problems. Perhaps an even better description for the necessary relationship is one that provides an element of eroticism outside of the therapeutic domain. These elements are essential for the analyst if he is to remain open and alive throughout his life.

Carl Jung identified two outcomes of psychotherapy. Healing the analysand of psychological suffering was the first, and the second was to help the analysand along the path of individuation. Individuation is understood as an underlying meaningfulness to an individual’s life. It is not a goal that is ever entirely attained, it is strived for on an ongoing basis. It is the bringing together of opposites to form a whole. It is to experience one’s own soul as completely as possible, and to come to terms with self. It is looking at the side of life that one has repressed or projected onto things and individuals external to himself. It is looking at the process of life and living and death and dying; all of it!

Individuation is not possible for one who is closed in their thinking about the self or their world. Stiffness and the inability to be flexible are counter to individuation. Individuation is influenced by all of the experiences one has in life, both positive and negative.

Many therapists believe that the process of individuation takes place in the last half of life. However, there is considerable evidence that this is not the case. In the first place, those individuals who die at an early age, or live/have lived in cultures where life expectancy is/has been short, would contradict this theory. It does not seem plausible that such individuals would have no chance to come to terms with the more essential elements of their being. In addition, many young people think deeply about the issues of life and death. Their dreams contain symbols of their individuation and knowing of the self.

Individuation is a process versus a task that can be programmed to begin and end at a certain age. It begins at any age and cycles as progress is made and pauses are present. Some perhaps never really are very interested at all in the process. The process is not dependent on any special accomplishment or prerequisite, rather it is affected by everything that occurs in the life of an individual.

Individuation is not dependent on a persons religious, spiritual, or psychological development. An individual with the strongest of egos with the ability to build defenses against the most fundamental elements of life may not be concerned at all with individuating. He is after all practical, dealing with life in the earth; education, job, marriage, family, parents, goals, success, achieving. There is definitely no time or energy here for hunting down the source of anxieties, fears, or doubts.

One of the ways an individual can facilitate the movement of the process of individuation is with analysis. Here the focus of the intervention is in the exploration of the unconscious. The events over the lifetime that have been tucked away in a supposed safe place are searched and sorted in an attempt to experience meaning in terms of the present life. The involvement of the analyst in the processes of analysis over many years, both with patients and with self, often create a false sense of having accomplished individuation or at least of being quite advanced in the process. The patient furthers this illusion by his need to have a therapist who he perceives is all powerful, and all knowing.

There is a tendency by analysts of every school to use psychology as the means to resolve mankind’s problems. In this way everyone’s behavior is reduced to and explained by psychopathology. Every school has their remedy for the salvation of the world. All schools do not understand a difference in mental health and individuation. In such circumstances the analyst may believe that he has helped people to find salvation or at least he knows how to achieve this. As a result these therapists become like false prophets.

Here we see the analyst, Jungian or other, who is at the end of a long and successful career. He is evaluated as a well adjusted, successful professional. Analysis and its knowledge base and techniques have enlarged their importance and application in all areas of his life. If Jungian, he has not only helped his patients to better mental health but has aided in their soul’s salvation. If of another school he has used the tools of psychology to help patients solve all solvable problems. At this point everything in the analyst’s life boils down to analysis and psychology. He on his pedestal views the world and relates to everyone in his world from this perspective. The analyst is now a helpless victim of his shadow. Even though he in reality is not as effective in his work, he believes that he is doing even better. He seemingly is very well adjusted even with an element of peace!

Every profession can be carried out without the awakening of the individuation process. In the helping professions people can be helped without activating the individuation process. What is certain is that if the therapist is not active in the process of individuation in his own life, he will not have the ability to activate it in his patients. If he is not consciously working with his shadow issues, or is projecting them onto others he will be incapable of stimulating the patient to be involved in this process as well.

The hope for the analyst lies in the encountering of something non-analytical. There must be something beyond analysis that will challenge the analyst, that his analysis will not master. This can take many forms such as music, art or science. Yet the problem with the analyst is that all too often he will analyze a particularly emotionally moving experience in one of these areas bypassing the actual experiencing of his personal emotional involvement.

Once again the psychotherapist seems doomed as a slave to his own analysis. In the final analysis, his only hope for encountering his shadow, and healing the splitting of the archetype is to truly and openly encounter loving relationships. Most often these relationships are with his family and friends. Rarely can they occur with peers, for they are often stuck in their own shadow. The necessity for the analyst to encounter his shadow side in relationships outside of analysis is that only through the give and take of loving relationships can he be challenged. That is the arena where he is not the expert, where he is not all powerful. It is through feeling the ups and downs, the pain and joy brought on by loving relationships that he can feel, regret and touch a bit of the darkness within his own soul.

It is the openness with which the analyst responds to the natural confrontations between him and those he loves that will stimulate his psyche to move. And it is this movement that has the potential to activate the individuation process within. There are no other ways known that are effective in aiding the analyst in coming to terms with his own shadow and restoring the archetypal split. Additional education in psychotherapy techniques, literature review and even most types of meditation will not succeed in protecting the analyst from his shadow. There may be some possibility that a God oriented meditation might help free the analyst from his shadow issues, however usually the therapist can analyze the religious and spiritual aspects as well.

To clarify the role of loving relationships in assisting the analyst to see his shadow, it is important to realize this is far more than being emotionally stimulated. There must be a vital connection between him and his significant others. He must be profoundly confronted with vital issues of life for which he simply has no analytical answers.

The problems of the psychotherapist are also problems in all helping professions. It is helpful to recall that all people who desire to work with the ill, unfortunate, maladjusted and ignorant are at the same time constellating problems within themselves. Those whose role it is to educate those in the helping professions need to emphasize that the problems of the patient are also the problems of the helper. They should be made aware of the ways the shadow side of their work expresses itself. They need to realize that they must not practice their professions like technicians working on machines where all is objective, sterile, and cold.

It is interesting that the analyst can assist other members of the helping professions to not fall victim to their own shadow, but they cannot use analysis to resolve their own entanglement with shadow. Only through emotional involvement with love relationships can he hope to regain his life. If he succeeds, he will be more able to assist his patients to heal and open to the individuation process as well. Then and only then is he on the path that other great psychotherapists have walked. Then and only then will he be accomplishing soul work.

In the times in which we live psychotherapists are armed with the knowledge and skill to explore the vast depth of the inner universe but it will not be accomplished if the analyst does not continue on steadfastly to explore the evil and mysterious forces that lurk within.