This paper explores the nature of interdisciplinary research in psychoanalytic studies by critically assessing the theory of cultural complexes. Too often, 'applied psychoanalysis' becomes 'wild psychoanalysis' when interventions ignore the respective epistemologies and methodologies of the disciplines onto which depth psychological theories are being applied. The notion of cultural complexes is one such case. The claim that the idea is a uniquely Jungian contribution to understanding culture is challenged. Important methodological hurdles that arise when a psychology of the individual is mobilized to explain group phenomena are ignored, as are its debts to the discipline of history. Perhaps most problematic is how the theory potentially sustains a tyrannical framework whereby different ways of remembering a past are stifled.

The continued existence of analytical psychology in the academy has largely depended on applications of analytical psychology to other disciplines. These attempts at “applied psychoanalysis” are in danger, however, of becoming examples of “wild psychoanalysis.” To remedy this, applications need to work at the interface of the two disciplines in question, building a firm foundation as the basis of dialogue. In this paper, I address the application of analytical psychology to the discipline of history by first exploring the ways in which ‘history’ and the historical method influenced, and found expression in, Jung’s psychology. Given the extent to which Jung evoked ‘history’ and depended on it as a hermeneutical framework, Petteri Pietikainen’s argument – that a revision of archetypal theory needs to occur if analytical psychology is to conduct meaningful analyses of culture – requires deeper consideration.

In reply to Dr. Singer, I question whether clinicians have a monopoly on understanding the unconscious. I reiterate the contention that if clinicians are to engage in cultural analysis, they need to be aware of the epistemology and methodology of disciplines whose sole purpose is to understand culture. Singer unwittingly acknowledges that the discipline of history is an unrecognised, albeit central, component of the theory of cultural complexes. To emphasise the importance of historical research, I challenge the widely held belief that the notion of a cultural unconscious should be attributed to Joseph Henderson. I clarify that my initial aim was to show that there are competing ways in which the term cultural complex has been used within depth psychology and accordingly, it is not a purely Jungian contribution. The current Jungian understanding of cultural complexes is in danger of becoming an uncritical meta-narrative promoting a laissez-faire approach, to which I take exception.

In this paper, I examine the work of Arnold J. Toynbee (1889–1975), a controversial historian heavily criticized by his colleagues, who utilized the lens of analytical psychology in his work. As one example of how Jungian psychohistory might be done, I employ a comparative approach that establishes the critical points of convergence between the two thinkers and highlight aspects of Toynbee's thought that were likely influenced by Jung. This provides a foundation for future works to not only critically reflect upon and delineate the characteristics of a uniquely Jungian approach to the discipline of history specifically, but to assess the efficacy of analytical psychological interventions into the social sciences more generally.

No abstract