the torch-bearers

There is an extensive, collegial connection between the ideas of Jungian thought and the field of gifted studies, including potential Jungian applications in the clinical setting and beyond. Additionally, the ego-Self axis has a unique role in gifted persons.

Once there was a child who sat on a rock and wondered if he was the boy sitting on the rock, or the rock being sat upon (Jung & Jaffe, 1963, p. 20). He had vivid dreams and visions, often with profound themes far beyond of his years (Jung & Jaffe, 1963, pp. 11-13, pp. 36-41). Algebra, with its use of variables, stirred moral doubts in him (Jung & Jaffe, 1963, p. 28). This child was highly intelligent and adept in metaphorical thinking, the ability to transfer ideas and problem solutions from one situation to another (Davis, et al., 2017, p. 29).

Later, as an adult, he would display a characteristic preference for complexity and an attention to the mysterious (Davis, et al., 2017, p. 30), becoming a theorist of the unconscious psyche, as well as dreaming up the concept of synchronicity, the meaningful coincidence without a causal link (Jung, 1952/1969b). In a remarkable show of verbal acuity (Jacobsen, 1999b, p. 18), his collected written works would ultimately span twenty volumes. This man was intense, driven by what he referred to as his daemon (Jaffe, 2023, p. 77), and demonstrated a classic urge to perfect (Jacobsen, 1999a, p. 288), refining his ideas over the course of a lifetime.

This fellow, of course, was C.G. Jung, the progenitor of analytical psychology. And the traits I mention above, ranging from an early sensitivity to moral issues, to the experience of a vibrant inner life, are often associated with giftedness.

a portrait of giftedness

The purpose of this article is to make a proper introduction between Jungian studies and gifted studies. This is not to say that mine is the first attempt at dialogue between these fields; Jung has long found a receptive audience among the gifted. But the scholarly conversations have been brief, something more like a friendly acquaintance than an ongoing, collegial relationship. In short, there has yet to be a dedicated interdisciplinary effort between the two fields. This is a loss for everyone, I believe, because gifted theory has much to teach us about Jung and the early Jungians, and Jung, in my opinion, has much to offer the study of giftedness. As a neo-Jungian, and a gifted adult, myself, I offer this essay as a solid handshake between these disciplines with the hope for more fruitful conversations to come.

giftedness, gifted studies, and gifted nature

In order to consider the potential benefits of Jungian applications for gifted studies (and vice versa), it will be helpful to establish the meaning of the terms ‘gifted’ and ‘gifted studies’ as they are understood within the context of this paper. To establish such definitions, however, is not as simple a task as it may sound; the term ‘gifted’ is actively in contention and some definitions contradict one another outright (Education Week, 2008; Silverman, 2013, pp. 19-49). Because I have to settle on some starting point, however, and because the following definition begins mentions inner experience, which is fundamental to Jungian thought, I suggest we begin here:

Beyond formal definitions, it is also common to encounter lists of gifted traits. These, too, may be helpful in establishing connections between gifted studies and Jungian thought. Many of the qualities I described in my portrait of C. G. Jung, above, are traditional gifted traits. Others include high ability (Silverman, 2013, p. 7), intensity, complexity and drive (Jacobsen, 1999a, p. 253), divergent thinking, excitability, sensitivity, perceptivity, and entelechy (Rinn & Bishop, 2015, p. 221, after Lovecky, 1986) and complex intellectual ability, childlike emotions, feelings of being fundamentally different … feelings of being overwhelmed by their creativity (Rinn & Bishop, 2015, p. 221, after Roeper, 1991).

Interestingly, I was unable to find any definition for ‘gifted studies’ — perhaps because attempts to define ‘gifted’ still have priority. But it is worth noting that the university-level gifted studies programs I investigated, while certainly not exhaustive, are dedicated mainly to the educational needs of gifted children and adolescents alone. To my mind, this makes the potential connection between Jungian psychology and gifted studies all the more urgent and worthwhile. Not only does it seem that there is a dearth of professionals focused on the needs of gifted adults (Rinn & Bishop, 2015, p. 228), but adult giftedness is one of the areas where I suspect Jungian applications can really shine. All that said, until a more formal, broad definition of gifted studies comes into use, I will offer this working definition: the discipline of gifted studies explores issues relating to the development, education, physiology, psychology, and spirituality of gifted and talented individuals across the lifespan.

With these definitions in hand, a reasonable question arises: What are the uniquely gifted needs which Jungian theory might help meet? Among the relevant issues that pertain predominantly to the gifted are: high rates of existential depression (Webb, 2013, pp. 78-80, p. 99), propensity for questions around meaning (Webb, 2013, p. 89), high incidence of spiritual experiences (Noble, 1995, p. 77), a preference for the intuitive function (Tolan, 2020, p. 25), and intense inner/imaginal life (Webb, 2013, p. 46). Each of these topics — existential and meaning-related issues, inner/spiritual experience, and the intuitive function — have been areas of focus in Jungian studies. In light of such shared interests, a rich interchange between analytical psychology and the gifted community seems very possible, indeed.

a look at the literature

Since I seek to deepen the conversation between the Jungian and gifted communities, it makes sense to consider what has been said so far. To that end, I offer this short review of the literature which will encompass a) occasions that Jungians have written about giftedness and b) gifted-authored works that interact with Jung.

Jung, to my knowledge, only mentions giftedness once in his writings. His essay, The Gifted Child (1946/1954) appears to be a response to the Basel School Council’s inquiry into transferring [gifted students] to a special class (Jung, 1946/1954, p 135n, p. 142). Jung opposes the change, arguing that gifted children are better off in a normal class (1946/1954, p. 142), a belief that conflicts with current research on academic acceleration (Neihart & Yeo, 2018, pp. 504-505). Despite this and other comments that contemporary research refutes — evidence for early gifted sensitivity to moral issues (Davis, et al., 2017, p. 25) versus Jung’s suggestion that gifted kids are at risk of moral laxities (1946/1954, p. 139), for example — this essay remains important. First, it establishes that Jung understood himself to have been a gifted child (1946/1954, p. 142). Additionally, it places him in the earliest, or Phase One, group of documented thinkers and theorists about giftedness (Dai, 2018, p. 15), suggesting that Jung and his work are not out of place in discussions of giftedness, generally.

Though Jung would not discuss the ‘gifted’ elsewhere, he does address the ‘creative person’ in several places — a phrase which, Lukács posits, is Jung’s alternate term for the gifted adult (Orsolya Lukács, personal communication, Nov. 2, 2023). The Spirit in Man, Art, and Literature (Jung, 1922/1966) is of special interest in this regard. Here, Jung considers creativeness as a transcendental problem (Jung, 1922/1966, p. 117), and observes that one must pay dearly for the divine gift of creative fire (Jung, 1922/1966, p. 120), echoing the gifted experiences of existential strain (Webb, 2013, pp. 94-99) and intensity (Jacobsen, 1999a, pp. 258-267). This essay, in particular, stands as an important acknowledgement that the gifted must frequently ride the uneasy ‘edge’ that their capacities can evoke.

In his collection of essays, The Place of Creation, philosopher and psychologist Erich Neumann, too, addresses the creative person through a Jungian lens (2017). He writes, We know that creative man is closer to the unconscious and to the world of the archetypes, (Neumann, 2017, p. 101) and that he is distinguished by a heightened tension between the conscious mind and the unconscious (Neumann, 2017, p. 102). If, as I suspect, many gifteds would agree with him, then the tools of analytical psychology become nearly essential. To live with a noisy, highly archetypally-constellated psyche can be overwhelming and even frightening. Jung becomes especially valuable, then, as the developer of active imagination, a method for working cooperatively with inner forces (Harkey, 2022b).

Barbara McLean’s article, Jung and I: A Study in Personal Integration, shares details of her journey with a Jungian therapist, describing their intensive work with anima/animus, shadow, and persona (McLean, 1990, pp. 18-20). Integration, a term McLean likens to Jungian individuation, may be the central issue for a gifted American female over age 30 (1990, p. 17, italics added). And for this particular gifted woman, Jungian therapy helped [her] to find [her] own wholeness (McLean, 1990, pp. 21) — a strong endorsement that Jungian thought may find a receptive home in gifted studies. It is also worth noting that this article is not the only one with a Jungian flavor in this issue of Advanced Development: A Journal on Adult Giftedness. Other works include The Concept of Individuation from Plato to Jung (Geller, 1990, pp. 1-9) and another by a Jungian analyst-in-training who highlights the value of dreamwork (Brown, 1990, pp. 11-15). Such explorations point to exciting prospects for a gifted-Jungian interdisciplinary pairing.

Reynolds and Piirto include Jungian and post-Jungian concepts in their article, Depth Psychology and Giftedness: Bringing Soul to the Field of Talent Development and Giftedness (2005, pp. 164-171). The authors feature both Jung and Hillman in their account of depth psychology which, as they note, embraces those psychologies dealing with the unconscious (Reynolds & Piirto, 2005, p. 164). Later in this paper, I will address their application of Jungian principles in gifted education, but at this point, I offer this almost sublime example of their enthusiasm for such applications, which is worth quoting in full:

Seeking to avoid reductive approaches to giftedness (Reynolds & Piirto, 2005, p. 165), and in search of a theoretical model that embraces the gifted experience in all its shadow and light, Reynolds and Piirto are advocates for a meeting of the minds, Jungian and gifted. Their interest in the daimon and Hillman’s poetic basis of mind (Reynolds & Piirto, 2005, p. 169; Hillman, 1975, p. xi) demonstrate two Jungian starting points especially applicable to gifted needs.

Respected educator and advocate for the gifted, Annemarie Roeper, only briefly mentions Jung in her article, The Role of the Unconscious (1995), but her attention to the deeper levels of psyche suggests that she understands the need for gifteds, and giftedness professionals, to attend to the worlds that transcend the merely conscious. In one passage, Roeper writes, The gifted child is often in a conflict over the discrepancy between the unconscious inner pressure and the outside demands (1995, p. 254), calling to mind Jung’s discussion of the complex as a response to moral conflict . . . the apparent impossibility of affirming the whole of one’s nature (1948/1969a, p. 98). Interestingly, Roeper evokes the concept of the complex again when she mentions different voices calling the child: the inner and the outer (1995, p. 254). The author’s references to psychic multiplicity underscore a phenomenon present in a number of writings on giftedness: the presence of metaphors and experiences which express the nature of the gifted psyche as natively multiple (see, for example, Geller, 1990, p. 3; Brown, 1992, pp. 6-12; Jacobsen, 1999a, p. 151).

where the two have previously met

While there has been interest in Jungian thought among gifteds, and some theorizing about gifted/creative persons in Jungian thought, there has been little in the way of concerted efforts to bring the two together (Reynolds & Piirto, 2005, p. 164). In this portion of my paper, I will consider two occasions when Jungian theories have been applied to giftedness-related concerns. The first of these, more a moment in time than a deliberate effort, might be described as an unintended application. The second is an purposive application with gifted adolescents.

a gathering of like minds

As noted earlier, Jung understood himself to be a gifted child, and demonstrated a host of traits associated with childhood and adult giftedness. With this in mind, I invite you to consider Jung’s assertion that every psychology — my own included — has the character of a subjective confession … every word I utter carries with it something of myself (1931/1967a, p. 336). Jung’s subjective confession, his very psychology, then, must bear the stamp of his giftedness. From its very beginnings, analytical psychology has been, almost by definition, a psychology of giftedness.

Perhaps so, one might argue, but cannot the same be said of other theorists? Freud was surely gifted, for instance. And I would agree. But I would also contend that there have been few psychologies which have had such an early and consistent appeal to the gifted than Jung’s, and that this, in itself, wins it a place as a psychology that caters to the needs of the gifted.

Consider the cadre of brilliant individuals who were early adopters of Jung’s theories:

Wolfgang Pauli, by age 28, held the chair in theoretical physics at ETH Zurich (Pauli et al., 2001, p. xxxi) and in 1945 won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the exclusion principle. He and Jung maintained a 26-year correspondence that included explorations of the relationship between psychology and physics (Pauli et al., 2001, p. xxix, p. xxvii). Together, the men co-authored the book, The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche (Jung & Pauli, 1955).

Christiana Morgan was a lay psychoanalyst (Douglas, 1998, p, xiv) with a rich inner life. Her collection of dreams and visions, which she also illustrated in a number of paintings, was remarkable as a depiction of a fully engendered woman reclaiming all the possibilities inherent in her psyche (Douglas, 1998, p. xvi). Jung interpreted her prodigious output an expression of the related processes of Kundalini yoga and individuation (Douglas, 1998, p. xviii, p. xxxi), and found her visions to be so exceptional that he dedicated more than three years to explicating their meaning in a body of lectures now called the Visions Seminars (Douglas, 1998, p. xiv).

One of Jung’s most significant and prolific proteges, Marie Louise von Franz, is now — like Jung — the author of her own body of collected works. A polymath with a profound depth and breadth of knowledge, her areas of study included alchemy, fairy tales, animal lore, and synchronicity, psyche and matter (Franz & Kennedy, 2006, p. 136). Additionally, von Franz was well-versed in Chinese mythology, eastern divinatory systems, diverse mathematical systems, and the arcane wisdom of the I Ching (Franz & Kennedy, 2006, p. 65). She earned her doctorate in classical languages and classical philology in 1940 (Franz & Kennedy, 2006, p. 135), a rare accomplishment for a woman of her era.

These are only a few of Jung’s exceptional adherents.

Moreover, in Modern Man In Search of a Soul, Jung describes a number of his patients as educated and suffering … because they could find no meaning in life (1933, p. 231), exceptionally able, courageous and upright persons who have repudiated traditional truths for honest and decent reasons (1933, p. 232) — themes which call to mind Webb’s descriptions gifted idealists struggling with questions of meaning (2013). Considering the many bright and exceptional persons who sought Jung’s help and explored his theories, it seems fair to say that, in a real sense, the very first application of Jungian thought was to address the psychological and intellectual needs of the gifted.

Some questions do need to be considered, however. For, while it might be argued that both Jung and von Franz had long, successful professional lives, Pauli and Morgan were perhaps less fortunate. Pauli — who originally sought out Jung because he was suffering fragmentation and dissociation (Pauli et al., 2001, p. xxxii) — would, after his Jungian analysis, return to some to his earlier, problematic behaviors (Lindorff, 2004, p. 244). Christiana Morgan deteriorated due to alcoholism, and may have committed suicide (Harvard Library, n.d.). Can it really be said that this early application of Jungian thought to the needs of the gifted was successful, then?

First, it is important to consider that no psychology can save every individual from trouble or suicide. Additionally, a group of four (Jung, von Franz, Morgan, Pauli) constitutes a very small sample. But with those caveats in mind, I offer this observation from James Hillman, which may provide some insight: Symptoms tell us that we can never take back into our ownership the events caused by the little people of the psyche. Symptoms remind us of the autonomy of the complexes; they refuse to submit to the ego’s view of a unified person (1975, p. 49). Alcoholism, suicidal impulses, other human flaws and symptoms — one may enter into analysis or a Jungian self-development practice because of these factors, but there is no guarantee that they will ever ‘go away.’ Our symptoms are an expression of depths within us that remain forever outside of egoic control. The real question cannot be whether we have ‘succeeded’ in overcoming the figures and powers within, but, rather, to what degree we have entered into community with them, integrated their riches into our lives, and endeavored to live in fruitful partnership with the most subtle, but also the most numinous, parts of ourselves.

depth psychological education

Holding that depth psychology offers special insights into giftedness, Reynolds and Piirto (2005, p. 164) advocate the application of archetypal theory in the high school classroom. Their approach embraces Jung, but is especially inspired by Hillman’s poetic basis of mind (Hillman, 1975, p. xi). In French language learning, as well as in the teaching of both creativity and integrity, these educators value teaching and learning methods that invite the participation of soul (Reynolds & Piirto, 2005, p. 166; Reynolds & Piirto, 2009, p. 200).

Their methods are straightforward. Whether with life questions or with school work, they strive to put students in touch with those stories, myths, books, persons, which seem to be reflected in their lives (Reynolds & Piirto, 2005, p. 167). They engage in storytelling and do not shirk from giving gifted adolescents impressive reading lists that include names like Eliade, Campbell and, yes, Hillman and Jung (Reynolds & Piirto, 2005, p. 168).

Reynolds and Piirto honor the daimon, the teleological aspect of the self, as an image that resonates with the concept of genius (2005, p. 165). The authors encourage multitalented students…to notice when they lose track of time, enter oceanic consciousness…even when they get into trouble because of a particular overexcitability (Reynolds & Piirto, 2005, p. 169). Attending to these subtle signals, of course, can guide them to the paths of soul — which is just what these educators intend.

They believe their work is an antidote, first, to schools’ tendencies to avoid engaging the shadow (Reynolds & Piirto, 2009, p. 203), and second, to a dependence on ego-centric psychologies in gifted education (Reynolds & Piirto, 2005, p. 164). And gifted teens appear to be responding positively and with success (Reynolds & Piirto, 2005, pp. 169-170). But it is depth psychology’s ability to see in the dark (Reynolds & Piirto, 2005, p. 166) that speaks to some students. For one gifted, wounded girl, conventional attempts to heal her depression only found more trouble, while a depth psychological approach gave her room to honor her suffering (Reynolds & Piirto, 2005, p. 169). In time, she — perhaps like Christiana Morgan? — left this world too young, but she requested of Reynolds that he continue to bring to education … the depth psychologies that were so helpful to her in her quest to understand herself (Reynolds & Piirto, 2005, p. 169).

Though their work values both Jung and Hillman, it is important to recall that Reynolds & Piirto emphasize depth psychology. Their approach is Jung-allied, but cannot be considered a purely Jungian application. (This is not to say that I advocate a purely Jungian application, but rather, that my paper deals with Jungian applications to giftedness, and so Reynolds & Piirto’s work has limits as an example of such an application.) Secondly, their work is directed at high school and college age gifted young adults; likely many, but not all, of their reflections will bear out in other stages of life.

With these limitations in mind, Reynolds and Piirto’s application of Jungian and post-Jungian concepts for gifteds is not only inspiring, it is also encourages future attempts. In a group of individuals for whom ‘potential’ and expectations of eminence are so resolutely stressed (see, for example, The Perfectionist, Roeper, 1982, pp. 21-22), the acknowledgement of uncomfortable archetypal constellations and shadow material not only creates balance, it may ultimately be sanity-saving. As Reynolds and Piirto observe, Creativity is not always friendly. It is sometimes … bent on harming, turned against life (2005, p. 166). Any effort to suppress our psychic darkness is sure to exact a fierce toll later on. It is far kinder to teach gifted young adults how to accommodate and ethically moderate their shadows than it is to compel a tragedy in the making: You must only and ever do great things for humanity — no matter the price to you. Jungian thought advises against such one-sidedness (Jung, 1954/1969d, pp. 207-208) and attends to the a healthy tension of opposites in psyche and in the world (Jung, 1952/1967b, p. 375). In this way, it allows those from whom much is expected to have more reasonable, humane expectations of themselves.

imagining jungian applications in gifted studies

The field for applications of Jungian thought in gifted studies seems fairly open. Which Jungian concepts or approaches, then, might be applied, and in what situations? I suggest there are four broad areas to consider: a) uniting gifted and Jungian scholarship and research, b) making Jungian methods and theories directly available to gifted individuals for self-development, c) the development of a giftedness-informed Jungian analysis, and d) using Jungian concepts to better understand giftedness. To advocate substantially for all four is beyond the scope of this short article. Instead, I will offer a few brief examples of the first three areas, then dive more deeply into a single application in the area of understanding giftedness using Jungian concepts.

1. In terms of uniting the scholarship and research of Jungian and gifted studies, one potential model might be to select a single aspect of psyche and investigate, through interviews or focus groups, the gifted experience of that aspect. My own current postgraduate research focuses in this domain.
2. Imaginational overexcitability, which includes traits such as love of fantasy and vivid imagery is understood as common in the gifted. (Silverman, 2013, p. 138, p. 140). Additionally, many embrace autopsychotherapy and education-of-oneself as advocated by Kazimierz Dabrowski (Mendaglio, 2017, p. 10). In keeping with these leanings, skillful engagement with imaginational landscapes may facilitate a more harmonious and productive inner life. Training events in Jungian imaginal methods such as dreamwork and active imagination may offer fresh tools which the gifted can then apply independently on an ongoing basis.
3. Perhaps one of the greatest areas of need is in clinical counseling. Rinn and Bishop note, counselors do not appear to be prepared to address the needs of the gifted adult (2015, p. 228), while Reynolds and Piirto are concerned about overuse of reductionist and ego-based psychologies (2005, p. 164, p. 165). When one adds to this the frequency and depth of meaning-centered, existential depressions among the gifted (Webb,2013, pp. 63-105), the matter appears increasingly urgent. Developing a research-informed, gifted-friendly Jungian approach to therapy will take time, but inviting experts on gifted studies to speak at Jungian analyst training programs might be a promising start.

application: giftedness and the ego-self axis

Stephanie Tolan observes that a complete honoring of the [gifted] self must begin with discovering what sort of consciousness, what sort of mind [gifted persons] possess (n.d.). Toward that end, I will conclude this paper with a Jungian application directed at creating a better understanding of the gifted psyche. The ego-Self axis, a concept from analytical psychology, will take a central role.

Let’s first begin by looking at the ego and Self individually, as these terms have uniquely Jungian definitions. The ego can be understood as the centre of [the] field of consciousness (Jung, 1921/1971, p. 425). It is the part of psyche that applies the will and interacts most directly with the outside world. In Jungian thought, we may want to ‘relativize’ the ego (Neumann, 2017, p. 51) — to understand that the ego is part of a larger intrapsychic community (Harkey, 2022a, p. 162) — but we never want to displace it entirely. Nor is there any sense that the ego is ‘bad.’

As for the Self, it might be understood as the archetypal divinity at the heart of the psyche ^[1] (Edinger, 1972, p. 3). We may even experience it as a god-image. (Edinger, 1972, pp. 3-4). Further, the Self is a source of telos, the autonomous inner directiveness that guides us on the path of individuation (Edinger, 1972, p. 97). Because of the Self’s nature as the ordering and unifying center of the total psyche (Edinger, 1972, p. 3), Jung tells us that the ego stands to the self as the moved to the mover (Jung, 1954/1969c, p. 259). In light of all these qualities, we might consider that the Self, as central directing force of psyche, has a religious, numinous, or divine tone, one that inclines us to strive toward wholeness (Samuels et al., 1991, p. 135).

Developmentally, the Self can be understood as an a priori existent out of which the ego evolves (Jung, 1954/1969c, p. 259). At birth, we come to the world immersed in the Self (Edinger, 1972, pp. 5-6), without polarization of inner and outer (Neumann, 1966, p. 83). In time, the ego expresses its independence from the Self, attaining true consciousness (Edinger, 1972, pp. 4-7), but it cannot resist the numinous pull of the Self forever. The conscious ego eventually develops a more deliberate relationship with the Self, engaging in what is both the psychospiritual structure and process (Mayes, 2016, p. 64) of the ego-Self axis. Jungian analyst Edward Edinger describes this axis as the gateway or path of communication between the conscious personality and the archetypal psyche (1972, p. 38). The depth of this communication may shift over the course of a lifetime, creating phases of ego-Self union and ego-Self separation (Edginger, 1972, p. 5). This suggests that the unique requirements of a given psyche can affect the relationship of ego to Self.

Neumann, speaking of the creative, or gifted, person, suggests that in the creative individual … the connection between ego and Self is alive in a special way (2017, p. 52). Such a connection takes on additional weight in the gifted psyche when we consider that the whole development and shaping of the personality circles around the ego-Self axis (Neumann, 2017, p. 57). By reasonable inference, we might consider the ‘special’ relationship of ego to Self as a key factor in the formation of the gifted personality.

Enter the gifted child who as early as first grade … struggle[s] with … existential issues (Webb, 2013, p. 96) and who may display markedly advanced moral development (Davis, et al., 2017, p. 25). In contrast to the individual with normal cognition, and who might not experience a well-defined ego-Self axis until later in life (Edinger, 1972, pp. 5-7), I suggest that the gifted child may develop her psychospiritual axis earlier, ‘hearing’ the messages of the Self, but without the benefit of understanding concepts like ‘ego’ and ’self.’ The difficulty for the child is that the elements which would eventually contribute to individuation are present in a degree asynchronous with other areas of development. For example, a gifted child may have an advanced, conscious awareness that some injustices of the world could be remedied but are not, and not yet have the emotional maturity to manage the feelings that such apparent disparity evokes (Silverman, 2013, p. 44, p. 46). These wounds pile up, and especially without a context for understanding such experiences, may result in the troubling accounts of teachers whose gifted students, as early as second grade, confide that they sometimes wish to die (Webb, 2013, p. 14).

I also suspect that the ego-Self axis, for gifteds, may be more pronounced across the lifespan, rather than taking center stage in the second half of life, as it does in cognitively normal adults (Neumann, 1966, pp. 84-85). Especially during psychic phases when the ego-Self axis is strongly engaged, gifted adults, too, may experience the discomforts of a psyche that places demands which cannot be met in the context of a mundane world. Here, we see Jung’s patients torturing themselves with questions which neither present-day philosophy nor religion could answer (Jung, 1933, p. 231). Similarly, the high ideals and expectations (Webb, 2013, p. 73) common to gifted adults might well have their source in a highly pronounced connection to the Self — which, by definition, sets a numinously perfect standard. Such difficulties may be complicated by the constellation of complexes formed during old traumas relating to giftedness, occasions when the world failed to attain the perfection it seemingly could, or should, have had.

It might be argued that I am implying ‘gifts’ where there are none. Such complications, in both gifted children or adults, might be viewed instead as arising from inflation, where the ego becomes identified with the Self (Samuels et al., 1991, pp. 81-82; Edinger, 1972, p. 7). I would suggest, however, that Edinger’s collection of sample ego-Self inflations — children in an egotistic little beasts phase, and adults living with the belief that the world is my picture book (Edinger, 1972, p. 11, p. 12), do not echo the typical gifted child who is less egocentric than the norm (Davis et al., 2017, p 24, italics added), or the adult who tends to be constantly penetrated by life (Jacobsen, 1999a, p. 263) and their earnest concern for the welfare of others (Jacobsen, 1999a, p. 147). Calling such expressions of giftedness ‘inflations’ would be to pathologize of some of the most beautiful (and, admittedly, most painful) gifts of giftedness.

conclusion

As with Christiana Morgan, Wolfgang Pauli, and Reynolds’ student who died young, the application of Jungian tools to gifted challenges may not fix any particular problem. But it can be argued that, for each of them, the Jungian perspective was life-enriching and yielded insights that, while not necessarily curative, facilitated healing.

Explaining to young gifteds what an ego-Self axis is, and how the numinous expressions of the Self are never quite attainable in the world, may help put the distress of gifted children into perspective. The Self always draws us forward, we might explain, so that we keep seeking better things for ourselves and others. Such a healing narrative, in turn, may give kids a set of images for expressing their experiences in words and art. In active imagination, they might learn to enter into conscious communication with inner expressions of Self. Similarly, adults with an awareness of their powerful union with the Self can choose to either dive more deeply — but more consciously — into their numinous depths or to take time out for ego-centered activities that may facilitate intrapsychic balance.

The flexibility of Jungian methods is a particular benefit, I believe, of an application for complex, gifted individuals. Jung provides us with images and methods capable of engaging gifteds’ intensity, in whatever form their drivenness takes, creating experiences that are more conscious, balanced, and numinous. Gifteds, of course, do not need Jungian thought to create satisfying lives. But if, as Jacobsen suggests, the liberation of our [gifted] potential calls for completeness (1999a, p. 212), the Jungian journey offers the gifted a path that welcomes their gifts wholly and affirms their powerful yearnings for meaning and perfection — all elements which echo the process of individuation.

⌅   references for this article