IAAP and IAJS Conference ‘Digitalisation and Analytical Psychology: Theoretical and Clinical Explorations’ in London, 27–29 August 2026
Did Donald Trump really read The Red Book?
On 27–29 August, a joint IAAP–IAJS conference entitled ‘Digitalisation and Analytical Psychology: Theoretical and Clinical Explorations’ took place at UCL (University College London) in London. For those who are not aware: the IAAP is the International Association for Analytical Psychology, founded in 1955 and currently uniting 81 associations of analysts worldwide, whilst the IAJS is the International Association for Jungian Studies, bringing together interdisciplinary researchers and academics (psychologists, philosophers, neuroscientists, etc.) who explore the concepts and phenomena of analytical psychology as developed by C.G. Jung and post-Jungians from an academic perspective. Such collaboration is highly valuable and essential for dialogue between researchers and practitioners, and also serves the aim of ensuring that analytical psychology takes its rightful place amongst other contemporary science-based schools of psychotherapy.
The honour of representing the IAAP and opening this conference fell to the chair of our association’s Education Committee and the IAAP’s president-elect, Prof. G. Gudaite, together with the chair of the IAJS, J. Vaughan.
The topic is extremely relevant: how digitalisation – various robots, AI-powered websites and chat platforms designed to provide emotional support, CGPT and so on – is affecting and changing not only modern people, their thinking, behaviour and even their brains, but also the field of psychotherapy and analysis and the role of the analyst within it. For many psychotherapists and analysts, this topic evokes conflicting feelings, often a mixture of fear and curiosity.
Opening the discussion, the renowned historian of analytical psychology, S. Shamdasani, recalled how the understanding of therapy and treatment methods itself has changed since C.G. Jung began his work at the famous Burgholzli Clinic, where patients with mental disorders were treated with hot water baths, hypnosis and suggestion, to the contemporary concepts of psychotherapy and the therapeutic relationship. It seems that we will once again have to re-examine our perspectives and beliefs. Numerous questions were raised during the conference; many of them remain unanswered, but we invite you to reflect on them and remain mindful.
Everyone agrees that an anthropological revolution is underway – a massive shift in consciousness that cannot be stopped, and to which we will have to adapt one way or another. Digitalisation opens up the world in the palm of our hand; with a single touch of a finger, we control another – this is breadth, speed and limitless possibilities. Immeasurable horizons are opening up, but the question arises: what is happening to the vertical dimension of experience - are not we losing depth by engaging with ourselves, others and the world in this way? In the age of digitalisation, mental health disorders and psychological problems are not diminishing: anxiety, depression, loneliness and isolation, a disturbed relationship with the body, internal pressure to conform to the image of the ‘ideal person’ created in virtual reality, and other such problems – these are just some of the torments of the modern human soul.
What is the role of a Jungian analyst in today’s digitalised reality? At the conference, the renowned analyst A. Samuels spoke about his interview with D. Trump and showed a photograph in which the US President is holding C. G. Jung’s Red Book. Did this really happen? No. So, first and foremost, the question arises: what is contemporary reality? How can we distinguish between what is generated by AI and what is real? Will we eventually be able to tell the difference? To which reality must a person adapt if they spend most of their time in virtual reality?
Do humans really need ‘the other’ as a separate subject, as we have hitherto been convinced, or is it enough that we tend to project a subject onto an object – we love a robot, we idealise AI, we become attached to CGPT, thereby, as it were, bestowing a soul upon the machine? Is transference without countertransference sufficient to achieve a therapeutic effect?..
There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that AI can fulfil maternal and paternal roles for us: AI is always available (as long as there is electricity and an internet connection), supports us, affirms us, mirrors us, and is patient (which is often not typical of people), can respond to a wide variety of topics and adapt to different problems with an inexhaustible store of knowledge (e.g. in the fields of health, psychology, philosophy, technology, etc.), reacts incredibly quickly, never tires like we do, and knows – or seems to know – the answers to all questions... It is impossible for a human to compete with AI; the question is, is it necessary?
Smartphones are not only becoming transitional objects, but also transitional prisons in which we become trapped; humans project their souls into machines and strive to become perfect machines themselves. On the one hand, robots are being developed that can help people save time, such as those assisting the elderly in care homes; on the other hand, there are killer robots and sex robots, some of which are even designed to resemble children, the use of which blurs the boundaries between human and machine and raises fundamental ethical issues (B. Soubrouillard). A major concern among mental health professionals relates to the prediction that, in this digitalised society, immature individuals – particularly children and adolescents – may become hostages to human-created technologies. Excessive engagement with technology fosters an object relationship based on exploitation and manipulation. In this way, the ‘id’ is ‘fed’, and our society fosters narcissistic and psychopathic personalities. G. Slater emphasises that, in order not to become hostages to the systems and agents we ourselves have created, we must realise that our attention is now our greatest treasure. To whom, and to what extent, do we devote our attention?
Attention span changes and attention disorders are becoming increasingly common. Educators are concerned and feel powerless as they increasingly encounter pupils’ and students’ formed habits of consuming fragmented information, and their inability to engage with and assimilate material for longer periods and at a deeper level – which is a prerequisite for understanding information and long-term learning.
Clients are increasingly turning to AI for help, analysing their dreams, exploring trends and relationship patterns, and comparing the interpretations provided by AI with those of therapists. Some specialists support this ‘parallel therapy’, whilst others oppose it, interpreting it as a power struggle or a return to the once-common practice of consulting fortune-tellers or astrologers. Currently, a growing body of research is analysing and confirming the short-term effectiveness of various therapeutic tools developed with the help of AI.
What is it that AI therapeutic platforms cannot yet provide? Research shows that, compared to therapists, AI is unable to wait and give the client more space; AI ‘talks a lot’ and does not tolerate pauses; it adapts and does not cause frustration (T. Kawai, O. Lukacs, M. Luci et al.). It has been observed that this type of interaction creates unrealistic expectations and fails to develop resilience to discrepancies. Experts note that a superficial, ‘flat’ form of linguistic, intellectual and emotional interaction prevails. For personal maturation and genuine—rather than pseudo—individuation, it is essential to engage with the other; it is necessary to experience discrepancies and challenges, and to make an effort. Maturity and creativity require periods of incubation, which sometimes seem meaningless and empty; the psyche needs time to integrate experiences. Without these, often emotionally unappealing elements, true transformation is impossible.
I–Thou relationship, the sharing of experiences and meanings, authenticity;
tolerance and the finding of meaning in pauses, inconsistencies and uncertainty;
efforts not to lose sight of the understanding of complexity as an antidote to the ‘flattening’ of everything;
a connection with the body, the earth and nature in general (grounding in various senses);
psychological ecology
– these are the key words that have emerged whilst reflecting on what a human being can still offer another.
Goda Rukšaitė
