Is Jung considered an influential figure for psychology

>>2151333
Not outside history classes. In such classes, learned a bit about what the classics understood "mind" to be, moving onto the medievals, then on to modern thinkers, stressing the roles of Freud and Jung and such on moving to the study of mind to somewhere outside philosophy (Freud understood his own practice as an outgrowth of his medical practice), then on to more rigorous scientific thinkers like William James, Pavlov, Skinner, etc. There are still a few very old psychiatrists that cling to psychoanalysis like a cult - the Austrian response to the study of mind is a pseudoscience, much like the Austrian study of economics and the Austrian cosmogony otherwise known as World Ice Theory.

>austrian academics

>>2151333

Influential in psychotherapy and applied psychology to a small degree, his work is filled with fascinating clinical insights. Not mainstream psychology as his constructs seem impossible to operationalise.

Mostly superseded Freudian nonsense like Lacan.

>>2151452
It's not nonsense anon.
*sniffing intensifies*

Anon, "academia" is not a single one thing, specially when it comes to psychology and psychoanalysis. Jung is an important figure to psychoanalysis history and he is certainly mentioned and talked about. But psychology in general has been split into several different things. There is a side of it that took a more scientific clinical approach and is more deeply integrated with neurobiology and psychiatry, in detriment of its cultural and linguistic aspects. In turn, psychoanalysis, specially after Lacan, has distanced itself from the prescriptive approach in favour of a more attentive ear to language and society.

Freud, who started it all out, was much closer, specially later in his life, towards psychoanalysis as it is today. That is to say, the practice that is concerned with the use of transference in the clinical work, the focus on the subject rather than the person, and attentive to the development of language to that subject. Jung was also of that line, but he took a detour that was his and his alone, which is due to his interest on occult and mystic subjects. Contrary to Lacan or Freud, Jung's psychoanalysis (which he called "psychanalysys" without the "o") focused more on the imaginary aspects than the symbolic ones. That means he is more interested in the dance of images and how they relate to each other, whereas psychoanalysis today is more interested in the symbolic meaning of those images to the analysand, regardless what these images are. Also because of that, Jung became extremely popular as a gateway to psychology and is a very known figure specially to those familiar with literary fiction, or from figures like Joseph Campbell, Alan Watts and others that drank extensively from his ideas.

cont

>>2151485 cont

Jung is not much studied today, even though there are jungians everywhere in the world, just like there is a myriad of different approaches to psychology, from behaviorists to gestalt therapy, lacanians or ego psychology, etc. It's also important to note that each analyst works in his own way and will always take some things from other areas, their work is always a collage of techniques and approaches. More scientific minded people will ignore Jung completely on the grounds of his occultism. More language oriented analysts will learn a lot more from Lacan than from Jung. So Jung ends up in a kind of solitary position there, if not for the popularity of his works.

Personally I like Jung and think it's just great to read him, even though I recognize that to use him in the clinic can be complicated.