Journal of Analytical Psychology, 2011, 56, 255266

An interview with Murray Jackson

Jan Wiener, London
Abstract: Murray Jackson was among the early trainees at the Society of Analytical
Psychology (SAP) drawn to Jungian ideas during the 1950s when the training was still
relatively informal. He was born in Australia where he became a doctor and came to
London to study psychiatry with a particular interest in psychosis. He was influenced
by Michael Fordham with whom he had an analysis and his four papers, published
in the Journal of Analytical Psychology in the early 1960s, contributed significantly to
the growing interest in clinical technique, particularly transference, that developed in
the Society at that time. Later, he retrained at the British Institute of Psychoanalysis
in the Kleinian tradition and was the first consultant at the Maudsley Hospital to run
a 10-bed unit for severely mentally ill patients applying psychoanalytic principles. In
April 2010, Jan Wiener interviewed Murray Jackson in France, where he now lives in
retirement, about his interest and subsequent disappointment in Jungian ideas as well
as his involvement with the Society of Analytical Psychology at a particular point in its
history. After a brief introduction, the interview is reproduced in full.
Key words: Fordham, Murray Jackson, Jung-Klein, Society of Analytical Psychology

Introduction
It was through a series of fortuitous coincidences that I first met Murray Jackson
in France and since that time, we have become good friends, sharing a common
interest in a small and rather charming corner of the Languedoc region. It was
very interesting for me to listen to Murray talking about training at the SAP
in the early 1950s, when training groups were small and the connections with
Jung himself still vital. Murray in turn was interested in finding out from me
about theoretical and clinical developments in the Society after he left the SAP in
the early 1960s to retrain as a psychoanalyst. It was these conversations about
Murrays experiences of the SAP at a particular point in its history that led to
the idea for this interview.
Murray Jackson has played a leading role over many decades both in Britain
and Scandinavia in stimulating the interest of professionals in a psychoanalytic
approach to individuals with psychotic illnesses. He was born in Australia in
1922, graduating in medicine at the University of Sydney in 1945. After doing
military service in Occupied Japan and a period of medical research in the US,
he moved to London where he trained in psychiatry at the Maudsley Hospital.
0021-8774/2011/5602/255


C

2011, The Society of Analytical Psychology

Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

256

Jan Wiener

The psychoanalytic influences on clinical medicine were strong in those days,

and during ten years as a psychiatric consultant in a University Hospital, he
developed a lifelong interest in psychosomatic disorders and the psychological
factors contributing to physical illnesses, especially those gastro-intestinal
disorders which could sometimes induce psychotic states. It was Jungian ideas
that first attracted him to the field, influenced by Jungians he met working in
the National Health Service in London, most particularly Michael Fordham.
After completing his training at the SAP, he served on a number of
committees, became a training analyst, and published four papers in the Journal
of Analytical Psychology in its early volumes between 1961 and 1964. One of
them, Symbol formation and the delusional transference (1963a), introduced
Kleinian ideas about symbolic equation and was critical of Jung for restricting
the use of the term symbol to the experience of symbolic equations by a mature
ego, paying less attention to those more schizoid patients with a much less
developed capacity to symbolize. His paper drew a strong response from Esther
Harding (1963b) in the Journal who argued that Jackson had misunderstood
Jungs use of the term. Murray Jacksons departure from the Society was
distressing for him and disturbing for his SAP colleagues, especially Fordham.
However, he remained in touch with some of them over the years even though
he found more comfortable professional affiliations in the British Institute of
Psychoanalysis.
Murray Jackson is particularly noted for his pioneering work as a consultant
at the Maudsley Hospital, where, together with Robert Cawley, from 1972,
he directed a 10-bed unit on Ward 6 applying psychoanalytic principles to
the treatment of a wide range of seriously mentally ill patients. His success
depended on the integration of pharmaceutical, psychological and innovative
nursing approaches, together with his psychoanalytically-based ward rounds
with patients and staff. After he retired from the National Health Service (NHS)
in 1987 his in-patient unit did not continue in the same modality, but his ideas
were quickly taken up in other psychotherapy centres in Scandinavia where
he was for many years a valued supervisor. Fortunately for us, he leaves a
legacy from this ground-breaking work in his two books, Unimaginable Storms
(1994)co-authored with Paul Williamsand Weathering the Storms (2001).
Although he has been retired from clinical work for many years, Murray
continues to write with his usual flair, especially about the mental states of
some notable literary figures.

Interview with Murray Jackson: 8th April 2010

JW: I think the first questions I wanted to ask are about you and your early
life and upbringing. I know you were born in Australiacould you say
a little about your childhood and upbringing and what made you come
here to the UK? A little bit of a personal history to start with.

An interview with Murray Jackson

257

MJ: I was born in Sydney. My father was a soldier/diplomat and my mother

a journalist, the editor of the well-known Australian Womens Weekly. I
trained in medicine at the University of Sydney.
JW: When was that?
MJ: In the early 40s. It was during the war years, and most of my
contemporaries spent their vacations in the Territorial Army, training
as military medical officers when we graduated. But the bomb stopped
that, and a few of us went on to serve in the Occupation forces in Japan.
JW: And then?
MJ: I then spent some time in the US doing research into blood coagulation and
in 1949 came to London to train in psychiatry at the Maudsley Hospital.
JW: Why medicine, was that connected with your family background?
MJ: I dont think I decided. I started in science and I soon found that I was
temperamentally more suited to the humanities, so I switched to medicine.
JW: Can you remember what interested you in psychiatry; what were the
triggers that led you in that direction?
MJ: As an adolescent I had read a little of Jung, and, as an introverted extravert
I was profoundly impressed, and the possibility of a personal analysis came
to hold a strong appeal.
JW: So you just found Jung?
MJ: Yes, thats how I got into psychiatry. By that time I was determined to
have an analysis.
JW: When was thatthe 50s?
MJ: The beginning of the 50s.
JW: So analysis was thriving then I suppose?
MJ: It was indeed and particularly at the Tavistock Clinic and the Cassel
Hospital, but also at the Maudsley, although primarily Freudian. I think
that quite a lot of people at the Maudsley were interested in Jung,
particularly in his work with Bleuler on psychosis. Many thought that
Jungians were kind and friendly, and sympathetic to religion, whilst
psychoanalysts were rigid, anti-religious and intellectually detached. There
was an important Jungian presence there, in the form of Dr. Eddie Bennett.
He was much sought after by the group of trainees who were forming
around analytical psychologyprimarily Anthony Storr, Bob Hobson,
Stewart Prince, David Howell and myself. We later came to know several
others, like Joe Redfearn and Dennis Scott. We all began a personal
analysis and soon started the training. Much later Michael Fordham
was very nearly appointed but a Freudian had more supportI dont
remember who, maybe William Gillespie or Clifford Scott. Much earlier
Herbert Rosenfeld had trained there briefly and had his first success
in making psychotherapeutic contact with very regressed schizophrenic
patients.
JW: Did you have to apply to the SAP? Can you remember the process of
trainingwhat was the training like then in comparison with now?

258

Jan Wiener

MJ: I dont recall having to make a formal application but no doubt I did. It
seemed to just evolve. I asked Michael Fordham to find me an analyst,
and he put me on to Eva Rosenbaum.
JW: What do you recall about the beginnings of the SAP?
MJ: I am rather vague about the actual beginnings. I think that the longestablished Guild of Pastoral Psychology had a strong Jungian ethos but
I suppose that the Society developed from Zurich several years before I
joined. Michael was the prime mover in London, with Gerhard and Hella
Adler, and a few others such as Leopold Stein, William Kraemer, Philip
Metman, Vera van der Heydt, Robert Moody and Ruth Strauss. They all
participated in the teaching. I dont recall anything about Godwin Baynes
except that Michael paid for his analysis by giving Baynes permission to
write his book about Michaels analysisThe Mythology of the Soul.
I think that some very high-level scholars were involved in the early
days. Many works, such as Eric Neumanns The Great Mother; Kerenyis
Introduction to a Science of Mythology; the books of Victor White (a
Benedictine monk), and those of the eminent physicist, Pauli, provided an
impressive cultural background.
JW: I think the SAP Training started in 1946 and the Journal started in 1955.
Did you have formal seminars or was it all very informally organized?
MJ: It was all fairly informal. It was a most interesting training with several
experienced psychotherapists but they did not have much psychiatric
background and there was very little teaching on developmental psychopathology apart from that by Michael himself. I had him and Gerhard
Adler as supervisors and I treated two training patients for over two years
three or four times a week. That was before I went into analysis with him.
John Layard was perhaps the most memorable of the teachersa famous
anthropologist and most entertaining eccentric. His book The Lady of the
Hare was a remarkable and original piece of work. I wonder if his name
is still known today.
JW: Oh yes, very much so. His son John Layard is doing all the writing about
NICE guidelines in the Health Service. He has recommended all sorts of
new structures for psychology and psychotherapy in the Health Services;
Judith Hubback started to write a paper about the work of John Layard
before she died.
MJ: I wonder if anything came of those beginnings.
JW: I dont know whats happened to those papers, whether they were finished
or not. How old were you when you began the SAP training?
MJ: I was 29.
JW: And were you married when you did the SAP training?
MJ: I married later in 1957 at the age of 35 and I left the Society in 1962. I
was in the Society for about 11 years, eventually serving on the Council
and as a training analyst.
JW: 11 years. That was quite a long time.

An interview with Murray Jackson

259

MJ: Yes, at times I thought that I should have gone into psychoanalysis earlier
but that was quite untrue. I did what I was ready for really and I owe
everything I achieved to the Society. There was a very supportive group
of young analystsFred Plaut, Michael Rosenthal, Dorothy Davidson,
Kate Newton and others, some of whom were very interested in Melanie
Klein. Michael [Rosenthal] met a premature death, and I lost touch with
the others, very much to my regret.
JW: Id like to ask you about your first analysis with Eva Rosenbaum, and a
bit about what analysis was like with her and then later with Fordham.
MJ: Rosenbaum was a large, formidable woman, a very experienced psychotherapist, warm-hearted and friendly. She was very helpful at first,
but after two years I realized that I wasnt getting what I needed. She
gave central importance to dreams, and this kept the analysis alive. But
she also recommended active imagination and the painting of fantasies
and activities which meant very little to me. It was good supportive
psychotherapy, perhaps just what I needed at that time, but I came to
realize that I needed proper analysis, so I left her and started with
Michael. I had begun to think that maybe I was unanalysable. Michael
also focused on dream life, but showed me how dreams could be used as a
defence against transference and other immediate issues, and introduced
me to the idea of infantile omnipotence. He was neither kind nor friendly,
which was a great relief.
JW: You felt that you were unanalysable at that stage?
MJ: I wondered if I was too normal; maybe I was what Joyce McDougall called
a normopath.
JW: What was the frequency? Did you use the chair, or the couch?
MJ: I had begun to use the couch with some of my patients in private practice
but not with Fordham who didnt use the couch in my analysis, which was
three sessions a week. By the time I started with Michael I had finished the
training and I think that I had occasional informal supervisory discussion
with several of my seniorsRuth Strauss and Vera van der Heydt come
to mind. They were extremely nice women and quite helpful.
JW: So you left the Society in 1962. How did your career develop from that
time? Did you have further supervision?
MJ: I had become increasingly interested in Melanie Klein, and working with
autistic children in my Maudsley training finally led me to decide to attempt to train in psychoanalysis. Michael had a long and close relationship
with Hans Thorner, a senior psychoanalyst who was his neighbour at his
country home, and he got on very well with Donald Winnicott, with
whom he discussed his own ideas on child development. I well remember
a discussion Michael had with another senior psychoanalyst, Clifford
Scott, on the question of which came first, the breast or the circle?
Michael encouraged my interest in Kleinian thought, but hoped that I
could remain on the SAP Council and make my departure a very gradual

260

Jan Wiener

one. At that time I had been appointed as Consultant Psychiatrist in Kings

College Hospital. It was a University teaching hospital, and so for 10 years
I had ample opportunity for teaching medical students and exploring
psychophysiological relations in a wide variety of medical disorders. A
few years later, the Royal College of Psychiatrists was founded and the
title of such appointments was changed to Consultant Psychiatrist with
special interest in Psychotherapy.
JW: During those 11 years when you were in the Society, do you remember
what the preoccupations of the Society were? Im going to ask you a bit
later about your papers which I found were very interesting to read in
context. What were the issues that were preoccupying people at that time
once you had qualified and were a colleague and a member?
MJ: There was a conflict slowly developing between the traditional group
which derived from Zurich and the newly developing group gathering
around Fordham. Many of these young members had a background in
clinical psychiatry, clinical psychology or social work in the National
Health Service where they dealt with patients who were more disturbed
than those they treated in private practice. The main issues seemed to focus
on developmental psychopathology, the function of symbolism, technical
issues concerning transference and countertransference and the use of the
archetype concept in clinical practice. I started to write about these issues
and Michael helped me very much. He told me eventually that I never
really understood the difference between a sign and a symbol and he was
probably right. None the less, my papers were well received and I was
very pleased to be helping to consolidate the Kleinian ideas that were
growing amongst the London group. Those were very busy and happy
years. There was so much going on helping the Society to grow, finding
and furnishing a new home for it, making new friends, and participating in
the founding of the International Association in 1955. On a private visit to
the US I gave a few lectures and received splendid hospitality from several
analysts whom I had met at an international congress, in particular from
Jay Dunne, Kieffer Franz, Joe Henderson and Joe Wheelwright. At about
that time Michael and Gerhard, who had cooperated very successfully in
assembling the Collected Works, began to diverge progressively in their
views as to what constituted depth psychology.
JW: I would like now to turn to your publications. There were four papers in
the Journal and one in the British Journal of Medical Psychology. The first
one, in January 1961 Chair, couch and counter-transference, struck
me as quite a tentative paper, beginning to introduce the pros and cons of
the chair versus the couch. The second one was Technique and procedure
in analytic practice with special reference to schizoid states. That was
in January 1962 and here again I think that was a stronger paper but
what I think was the really good paper was the one in July 1963 called
Symbol formation and delusional transference. It really began to tackle

An interview with Murray Jackson

MJ:
JW:
MJ:

JW:
MJ:

JW:
MJ:

261

issues of death, destructiveness and the importance of psychoanalytic ideas

for analytic psychologists, ideas that seemed to be missing from Jungian
thinking and practice. So that was the third one, and the fourth one was
The importance of depression emerging in a therapeutic group. That
was in January 1964. So there was one in 1962, two in 1963 and one
in 1964. It was in the fourth one that you were beginning to get some
ideas about the depressive position. So the papers themselves show how
you were beginning to incorporate psychoanalytic ideas and in particular
Kleinian ones. When you presented the paper on symbol formation at an
International Conference it drew a very critical reply from Esther Harding
who was trying to put you in your place by saying that she thought youd
got the wrong end of the stick about symbols.
She was very angry, and with good reason, because the ideas that I was
presenting were an anathema to many members of the Zurich school.
Can you now say something about what made you decide to leave the
Society?
I think my decision came as a consequence of getting involved with
psychotic patients, in whom I have been interested ever since; initially,
I was quite excited to learn about Jungs monumental work with Eugen
Bleuler at the Burgholzli
hospital. Before I left the Society I had had a

few borderline patients in treatment but I didnt really have anything to

do with really disturbed psychotic patients until I had my own Unit at
the Maudsley, an interesting enterprise which I subsequently described
in two books. I had become acquainted with Henry Rey, a Kleinian
psychoanalyst working at the Maudsley who was becoming widely known
as a brilliant teacher. We became close personal friends and he began
to help me with my difficult patients. I became increasingly committed
to the idea of having a Kleinian analysis, and, after a long time on
Herbert Rosenfelds waiting list I began my third analysis, which lasted
for ten years. After two years I began the training course at the British
Institute. Once I had been accepted I resigned from the SAP, in 1962.
I had been hoping to maintain contact of some sort but the training
committee of the Psychoanalytic Society wouldnt co-operate. It was all or
nothing.
It must have been a huge thing to leave the Society, and start at the
beginning with another one at the age of 40.
Indeed it was quite a step to take, changing horses in mid-stream as it
were, and it was a struggle to keep my head above water, which anybody
whos had an analysis and a training at the same time as a career will
know only too well.
So were people very cross with you, like Fordham for example?
Fordham was very helpful although he was at first taken aback at my
decision, but he certainly approved of my interest in Klein. I think I was
regarded in some quarters as a renegade who had deserted the cause,

262

JW:

MJ:

JW:

MJ.

JW:

Jan Wiener

but I thought that I was only the first of many who would subsequently
embrace Kleinian and neo-Kleinian ideas, without necessarily leaving the
SAP, and this has proved to be the case. I think that subsequent work
trying to integrate Kleinian and Jungian thought, not least by Fordham
himself, has been extremely successful, and has developed into what
some have called the Jung-Klein-Bion hybrid which has attracted the
interest of many psychoanalysts. I think that your own work has been
very influential in this respect. No doubt the other Jungian groups have
made their own advances, but, whilst I have to some extent followed
the evolution of Jungian thought over the years, I know nothing of
the growth of knowledge in other theoretical streams of analytical
psychology.
I think that the idea of greatly increased flexibility is probably true because
nowadays it is more possible, as in the Institute of Psychoanalysis, to
contain people with different approaches. It sounds as though at the time
that you were there, there wasnt the freedom for you to do your own
thing as it were or to express yourself. I am wondering whether the kind
of change in yourself you describe is more likely to happen because of
personal influences, such as in your case, Henry Rey, or whether they
happen because of theoretical dissatisfactions.
Maybe they are inseparable. I have been very impressed by the high level
of scholarship and critical thought of many contemporary Jungian writers
which must make a big impression on trainees, and I have been very glad
to see how a rapprochement is developing with the British Psychoanalytic
Society, now it has begun to widen its boundaries to include the British
Association of Psychotherapists, and to offer honorary membership to
some individual experienced analytical psychologists.
The other question I want to ask you is whether your analysis with
Rosenfeld was very different from your analysis with Fordham. Was it
a more stringent analysis with Rosenfeld, or a different kind of focus?
Can you say something about that?
The big difference was the use of the couch. Rosenfeld was very tough,
in the sense of not letting me get away with narcissistic assumptions. He
was certainly capable of being silent, although I felt that he sometimes
talked too much for my liking. That was often said about Kleinians as
in the old joke about two analysts meeting on the way and one saying
Ive got to hurry to my session because Im a Kleinian and my analyst
will start without me! As with my Jungian experience, the analysis of
dreams was an important focus as was transference. But there was very
much more emphasis on heavily defended envy and aggression. The great
legacy for me from my analysis with Rosenfeld was my growing capacity
for self-analysis.
If you look back now on your professional life, what are the things
you are grateful for and are there any regrets when you look
back?

An interview with Murray Jackson

263

MJ: I suppose when you feel youve made a fairly reasonable transition
from the paranoid to the depressive position one is full of sorrow and
regret which never ends. Actually having paranoid feelings probably still
remains with everybody a bit, perhaps thats a matter of definition. I have
some personal regrets about people whom I havent valued sufficiently.
Nowadays I write a little about the role of loss and mourning in creativity,
the recovery of memories of the past a` la Proust.
JW: You were in contact with Fordham before he died I think?
MJ: Yes, I was. I kept more or less in contact with him by letter and I
occasionally met him. Earlier on, after Id resigned, Id visited him at
Jordans, his country cottage. I regret that I did not see more of him.
JW: Did you ever meet Jung?
MJ: Yes, indeed I did, first at the IAAP in Zurich where a small group of us
visited him where he was staying at the Waldhaus Dolder hotel. He was
very welcoming and saw us individually for 15 minutes or so. He was
warm, humorous, and interested in us and our views. We all came away
with stories to dine out on for the rest of our lives. I visited him much
later too with others at Bollingen, and was very impressed to find that he
had remembered our earlier conversation very clearly.
JW: I have two more questions. The first is whether there are any unwritten
papers in your headpapers that you might still write or wish that you
had written?
MJ: I have written quite a lot, and I sometimes have a wish to collect and republish some of those old papers, but the two books I have already written
about my ideas and experiences are quite enough. At present I am writing
about creativity and psychosis in the lives of Vaslav Nijinsky and Jose
Saramago, and I have recently published an essay on the mathematician
John Nash, the subject of the film A Beautiful Mind.
JW: Just one last question then. What would you say to a young psychiatrist
today who might be interested to train as an analyst?
MJ: I would tell him that he should realize what a big commitment of time,
expense and emotional stress will await him. He must also realize that
depth psychology is at present under threat from short-term techniques of
clinical psychology, and that CBT methods are officially recognized in the
NHS to the detriment of analytic ones; that there are other pathways to
increasing self-awareness, such as for example, group analysis, Buddhism,
meditation; but that if he wants to understand his own mind, with all
that this implies, and to be trusted with the care of the minds of others,
then analysis is the optimum pathway. At the same time, he should
also know of the exciting developments of analytically-based methods
of treatment for the seriously mentally ill that are taking place both in the
UK and other countries, and of the developments in the new specialty of
neuropsychoanalysis.
Analytic thought is alive and well despite the current swing of the psychiatric pendulum towards biomedicine and away from depth psychology.

264

Jan Wiener

John Rickman once said that he who really wants analysis can certainly
get it, even if he has to get into debt and live in a garret. Things may not
be so difficult today, but the need for determination is still the same.
JW: Thank you Murray.
TRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT
Murray Jackson comptait parmi les premiers candidats en formation a` la SAP acquis
aux idees de Jung dans les annees 50, lorsque la formation e tait encore relativement peu
formalisee. Ne en Australie, ou` il devint medecin, il vint a` Londres e tudier la psychiatrie
et sinteressa particuli`erement a` la psychose. Il fut influence par Michael Fordham, avec
lequel il entreprit une analyse. Ses quatre articles, parus dans les annees 60 dans le JAP,
contribu`erent de mani`ere significative a` linteret croissant pour la technique clinique et
le transfert en particulier, qui se developpa dans la Societe dans ces annees-la.
` Plus tard,
il entreprit une autre formation au British Institute of Psychoanalysis dans la tradition
kleinienne. Il fut le premier medecin consultant du Maudsley Hospital dans un service
de dix lits pour patients gravement atteints psychiquement, a` appliquer les principes
psychanalytiques. En avril 2010, Jan Wiener interviewa Murray Jackson en France, ou`
il vit actuellement a` la retraite, le questionnant sur ses interets, sa deception a` legard des
idees jungiennes ainsi que son implication dans la Society of Analytical Psychology a` un
moment particulier de son histoire. Faisant suite a` une br`eve introduction, lentretien est
publie dans son integralite.

Murray Jackson zahlte

zu den ersten Ausbildungsteilnehmern der SAP, die es wahrend

der 1950-er Jahre zu Jungschen Ideen zog, als die Ausbildung noch relativ formlos
war. Er wurde in Australien geboren, wo er eine Ausbildung zum Mediziner machte
und kam dann nach London um Psychiatrie zu studieren mit besonderem Interesse
an Psychosen. Beeinflut wurde er von Michael Fordham, bei dem er in Analyse
war. Seine vier in den fruher
1960-er Jahren im Journal of Analytical Psychology

veroffentlichten
Beitrage

trugen signifikant zu dem wachsenden Interesse an klinischen

Techniken, besonders dem Umgang mit der Ubertragung,

bei, das sich in der SAP zu
jener Zeit herausbildete. Spater
machte er eine zweite Ausbildung am British Institute of

Psychoanalysis in kleinianischer Tradition und wurde der erste Fachberater am Maudsley

Hospital, der eine 10-Betten-Einheit fur
schwer seelisch kranke Patienten unter Einbezug
psychoanalytischer Prinzipien leitete. Im April 2010 interviewte Jan Wiener Murray
Jackson in Frankreich, wo er nun im Ruhestand lebt, bezuglich
seines Interesses an und

spateren
Enttauschung
uber
Jungianische Ideen wie auch uber
seine Verbindungen zur

Society of Analytical Psychology an einem bestimmten Punkt ihrer Geschichte. Nach

einer kurzen Einleitung ist das Interview in voller Lange
wiedergegeben.

Murray Jackson, attratto dal pensiero junghiano durante gli anni 1950, fu tra i primi
allievi della SAP quando il training era ancora relativamente informale. Era nato in
Australia, dove divenne medico. Venne poi a Londra a studiare psichiatria, con un
particolare interesse verso la psicosi. Sub` linfluenza di Michael Fordham, con cui fece

An interview with Murray Jackson

265

la sua analisi, e i suoi quattro lavori, pubblicati nel Journal of Analytical Psychology nei
primi anni 60 contribuirono significativamente al crescente interesse nella tecnica clinica,
in particolare all interesse per il transfert, che in quel periodo si stava sviluppando nella
Societa.
` Piu` tardi ebbe un nuovo training nella tradizione kleiniana al British Institute
of Psychoanalysis e fu il primo specialista al Maudsley Hospital a guidare una unita` di
dieci letti per pazienti gravemente malati, applicando principi terapeutici psicoanalitici.
Jan Wiener lo intervisto` nell aprile del 2010 in Francia, dove egli attualmente vive,
ritiratosi sia dal suo interesse e dal successivo disaccordo con le idee junghiane che
dal suo coinvolgimento con la Society of Analytical Psychology in un particolare
momento della storia di essa. Dopo una breve introduzione, lintervista viene interamente
riportata.

Mrre Dekson byl odnim iz pervyh staerov Obwestva Analitiqesko

Psihologii (SAP), uvlekxihs idemi nga v 1950-h, kogda obuqenie bylo
ewe otnositelno neformalnym. On rodils v Avstralii, gde stal vraqom,
i priehal v London izuqat psihiatri, osobenno interesus psihozami.
Na nego okazal vlinie Makl Fordhm, u kotorogo on prohodil analiz,
a qetyre stati Fordhma, opublikovannye v urnale Analitiqesko
Psihologii v naqale 1960-h, vnesli ogromny vklad v rastuwi interes
Deksona k kliniqeskim metodam raboty, razvivavxims v to vrem v
Obwestve, osobenno k perenosu. Zatem on vnov uqils, na tot raz v
Britanskom Institute Psihoanaliza v klniansko tradicii, i stal pervym
konsultantom Kliniki Modsli, rabotavxim v otdelenii dl telyh duxevnobolnyh pacientov (na 10 koek), primen psihoanalitiqeskie principy.
V aprele 2010 Dan Viner vzla interv u Mrre Deksona vo Francii,
gde tot seqas ivet, ud na pensi; ona govorila s nim o ego interese
i posleduwem razoqarovanii v ngianskih ideh, a take o ego roli v
Obwestve Analitiqesko Psihologii na opredelennom tape istorii. Vsled
za kratkim vstupleniem interv vosproizvedeno polnost.

Murray Jackson estuvo entre los primeros alumnos de la SAP atraido por las ideas
Jungianas durante los anos
cincuenta cuando el entrenamiento era todava relativamente
informal. Nacio en Australia se graduo de medico y vino a Londres para estudiar
psiquiatra con un interes particular en las psicosis. Fue influido por Michael Fordham
con quien estuvo en analisis
y produjo cuatro trabajos, publicados en el Journal

of Analytical Psychology a comienzo de los anos

sesenta, contribuyendo en forma

considerable al creciente interes en la tecnica clnica, especialmente en referencia al

desarrollo de la transferencia en la Sociedad en aquel momento. Mas
tarde, e l reentreno
en el Instituto ingles de Psicoanalisis
en la tradicion

de Klein y fue el primer consultor

en el Hospital de Maudsley en dirigir una unidad de 10 camas para pacientes mentales
severamente enfermos en aplicar los principios psicoanalticos. En abril de 2010, Jan
Wiener entrevisto Murray Jackson en Francia, donde e l actualmente vive jubilado,
preguntadole
acerca de su interes y desilusion

subsiguiente en ideas Jungianas as como

su participacion
en la Sociedad de Psicologa Analtica en un momento particular de su
historia. Despues de una breve introduccion,
se reproduce la entrevista en su totalidad.

266

Jan Wiener

References
Harding, M.E. (1963). A critical appreciation. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 8, 2,
16064.
Jackson, M. (1961). Chair, couch and counter-transference, Journal of Analytical
Psychology, 6, 1, 3545.
(1962). Technique and procedure in analytic practice with special reference to
schizoid states. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 8, 1, 5165.
(1963a). Symbol formation and the delusional transference. Journal of Analytical
Psychology, 8, 2, 14560.
(1963b). Reply to Esther Harding. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 8, 2, 16467.
(1964). The importance of depression emerging in a therapeutic group. Journal
of Analytical Psychology, 9, 1, 5161.
(2001). Weathering the Storms: Psychotherapy for Psychosis. London: Karnac
Books.
Jackson, M. & Williams, P. (1994). Unimaginable Storms: Search for Meaning in
Psychosis. London: Karnac Books.
[Ms first received June 2010; final version December 2010]