Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Theory & Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jones, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Psychological Value and Symbol Formation

Raya A. Jones

Cardiff University, JonesRA9{at}cardiff.ac.uk

Jung's (1928/1988) radical revision of Freud's libido theory is critically reviewed here with a focus on its cogency, rather than historical context, identifying its convergence with gestalt field theory and the relational concept of mind. Jung was aware of a tension between his `pure' concept of psychic energy and the `applied' concept, already established in clinical practice. Today the latter is familiar, though objectionable on scientific and philosophical grounds, whilst Jung's arguably persuasive thesis is virtually unknown. Jung contended that energy is not a force, the functional context of behaviour is a closed system of psychological values, and therefore libido is not substance or desire. His proposal for applying the concept in psychology, especially regarding symbol formation, is less successful, reiterating the metaphor of libidinal flow. Parallels between Jung's thesis and current debates concerning the ontological status of information and informational processes are pointed out.

Key Words: Jung • libido • relational concept of mind • symbol formation

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 11, No. 2, 233-254 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354301112005
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
R. A. Jones
Mixed Metaphors and Narrative Shifts: Archetypes
Theory Psychology, October 1, 2003; 13(5): 651 - 672.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
R. A. Jones
The Relevance of C.G. Jung
Theory Psychology, August 1, 2001; 11(4): 569 - 577.
[Abstract] [PDF]