In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
American Imago 59.4 (2002) 409-434
Introduction
Scientific reconsideration of C. G. Jung's difficult,
fascinating, and peculiar idea of synchronicity, which he believed
to represent an acausal connecting principle, has become possible
with the advent of recent developments in understanding the
self-organizing features of complex adaptive systems (CAS). In
particular, the question of acausality in "meaningful"
coincidences, especially those observed in the clinical setting,
can be reassessed in terms of the concept of emergence, which
explores holistic phenomena supervening from interactions among
component agents.
That the present moment is a timely one for reexamining
synchronicity is borne out by the response of Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer
to a questionnaire published in the January 2002 issue of the
Journal of Analytical Psychology (JAP). The
questionnaire is part of an ongoing dialogue between psychoanalysts
and analytical psychologists that JAP has fostered for the
past six years. Designed for comparative purposes, this
questionnaire bears some resemblance to one published in
Psychoanalytic Dialogues (Fosshage and Davies 2000), which
consisted of responses by analytical psychologists, though the
subject of synchronicity was not addressed there. For the
JAP special issue, arrangements were made with eight
psychoanalysts, representing a spectrum of orientations, who agreed
to prepare answers for publication. Mayer, a training analyst in
San Francisco, was the only respondent to express an interest in,
as well as knowledge of, Jung's writings on synchronicity.
In her article, Mayer (2002) suggests that Freudian and Jungian
views of reality are well-poised at this juncture to enter into "a
wider scientific and cultural conversation . . . where some of the
most lively and critically important questions about people and
their relationship with the world are currently being asked" (92).
In her view, this dialogue centers on the way that an extensive
range of phenomena—both physical and psychological—are being
reconceptualized as "separate and separable versus connected and
inseparable." She goes on to suggest that "Freudians have developed
a view of the mind which . . . elaborates implications of its
separateness and its unequivocally boundaried character," whereas
Jungians have "elaborated implications of the mind's connectedness:
the nature of its quintessentially unboundaried
character."
In articulating what she believes to be the core elements of
these distinctive approaches to the mind, Mayer singles out the
understanding of the transference, which, "perhaps more than
anything else, dramatically manifests the individual boundaried
mind in action," as the clinical tool par excellence of
psychoanalysis. In contrast, she locates the genius of the Jungian
school in its attention to "the collective mind and what we might
call the profoundly connected mind" (92).
An interest in the limits of connectedness leads Mayer to the
notion of synchronicity, which she aligns with the contemporary
turn in many disciplines to revalue the subjective, relational, and
intersubjective aspects of reality. As she notes, "the concept of
synchronicity emerges from a model of the mind characterized by a
radical connectedness between minds and also between minds and
matter, placing the human mind in a field characterized by
interactive possibilities that simply occupy no conceptual place in
Freud's psychology of the individual" (93).
Although Mayer in other papers has written on seemingly
anomalous mental effects in clinical encounters (1996a; 2001) and
changing scientific paradigms informing psychoanalysis (1996b;
2000), she has not explicitly reassessed synchronicity in light of
these concerns. Her focus has been on models of interaction in
science, philosophy, and medicine that argue for the mind's role in
shaping reality. On the other hand, most efforts by Jungians to
consider synchronicity from a scientific perspective have been
closely tied to Jung's own examinations of the interface between
twentieth-century physics and his psychological theories. In short,
despite occasional remarks suggesting links between synchronicity
and chaos theory (e.g., Main 1997, 26), no one from either the
Freudian or the Jungian side has systematically pursued this line
of inquiry. Even more productive considerations can be derived from
a reconsideration of the intersubjective aspects of the
synchronicity hypothesis in light of the present understanding of
CAS. Application of the findings from these converging areas of
research, I believe, offers a new framework for comprehending
meaningful coincidences associated with the analytic encounter.
Coincidence
Although the subject of meaningful coincidence...