As a Jungian, I consider the practice of psychology to be more of a vocation or a calling than a "profession" or career choice. So, while I appreciate the need for lots of study and education, it seems to me that the focus needs to be on things like apprenticeships rather than on exams and grades, and that we need to guard against a monopoly by those who have a particular point of view and/or claim special access to the truth or to the most correct or accurate methods.

A major problem with mainstream psychological training programs is that they have come under the rulership of powerful and moneyed groups (e.g., the American Psychological Association) who get to decide what needs to be studied in order for someone to become a therapist. So, for example, topics of interest to a Jungian (the unconscious, dream work, myth, the symbolic approach, hermeneutics, alchemy, metaphor, etc.) cannot be found in any program being offered at our colleges and universities. Students are taught that psychology involves the application of "techniques" rather than the issue of the therapist's person and presence. So, for example, students study statistics but never have to undergo any kind of therapy themselves. Psychology has bought into the fantasy that psychology is a science and that the only correct path to truth is the so-called 'scientific method' (which involves, e.g., the concepts of objectivity and neutrality; empiricism, the search for universal laws which operate on the basis of cause and effect; and the belief that the "best" way to legitimate knowledge is to render a 'true' representation of what 'really' happened). Although the scientific method may have a place in certain areas of psychology, I do not believe it is helpful in the study of psyche as such.

Of course, there are a handful of unconventional programs (I graduated from one: The Union Institute) that offer committed learners a way out of this, but in many states (Pennsylvania, where I live, is one of them) the only way to get licensed through such a program is (1) to structure one's program to look like an APA program, (2) to complete an APA-approved internship and (3) to pass a test on topics dictated by the APA. In other words, in Pennsylvania at least, I cannot be tested on the areas of study that are relevant to a Jungian therapist. In effect, my actual skills and effectiveness as a therapist are irrelevant to the testing/licensing process. There are lots of bad therapists out there, many of whom have lots of credentials and are licensed. Some people argue that without licensing the public will be tricked by charlatans. I disagree. Licensing has become a political and ecomonic issue. I would argue (1) that some people are going to be taken in no matter what we do, (2) that credentials offer a false sense of security and are more likely to lead folks to trust someone just because they have a particular piece of paper, and (3) that the rush for credentials has led to the mess we are in now in regards to so-called 'managed care' and reimbursement by insurance companies.

It's not that I'm against any concept of licensing as such. I think anyone practicing psychology or astrology should be required to register with some official body, declare their training and experience, and be monitored (like a BBB). I'm only against the power the APA or any other group to dominate the process and thus dictate what is important.

My fear is that astrology is heading in the same direction. Arguments in favor of establishing formal testing procedures, etc., for astrology usually center around the idea that astrologers need such things in order to be recognized and respected by the public. Frankly, I don't believe we serve the interest of astrology by trying to make ourselves look like everybody else. Yes, we need to establish some kind of standards and ethical principles of conduct, etc., but we should look at our own history for our standards. The problem with using testing as a way to qualify astrologers is that some structure for evaluating those tests must be established. That means that someone or some group will have the power to set standards for all of us. That makes me uncomfortable.

Let's face it. Astrology will never be a mainstream practice anymore than Jungians will ever dominate psychology. If Jungian institutes ever start teaching statistics, I will stop identifying myself as a Jungian because such a shift would be a fundamental violation of the spirit of Jung's work. (I can be very critical of Jung, but I identify as a Jungian because I remain committed to the spirit of his work.) In a similar way, if astrology ever adopts the standards of conventional academic programs, I will stop identifying as an astrologer because such a move violates the spirit of our tradition. I do not believe that a good astrologer is defined by tests and grades and certificates. For me, a good astrologer is like a good therapist: a person who has studied long and hard, who has a gift for the work, and who is not afraid to enter into an intense relationship with a client. I don't think that can be tested for. I think it requires an apprenticeship process.

I'm not sure I've been very articulate here. I feel passionately about this topic. I don't have all the answers about the 'right' way of monitoring ourselves, but I do know that mainstream psychology is definitely on the wrong road. We made a deal with the devil (currently represented by the insurance companies, etc.) and if we are not careful we will lose our souls. It would pain me greatly to see astrologers do the same.