Reddit mentions of C.G. Jung in the Humanities: Taking the Soul's Path

I'm not really sure, but I'd surmise a few reasons:

From the humanities angle, on initial appraisal his ideas look like both a kind of essentialism and /or metaphysical in a 'mystical' sense, both categories of which sit in difficult or contested spaces of perceived relevancy. Again it depends on the institution and the individuals involved.

I read an article once, I forget where now, which concerned the history of how psychoanalysis became proliferated in the academy in France primarily through friends and compatriots of Freud who championed his work and spread his ideas. Jung didn't receive the same support or validation via this route (this possibly also relates to the split between Jung and Freud; the affects of it reverberated in numerous ways). French critical theory and philosophy for example, and of the twentieth century at least, hugely influential in the arts, aesthetic and literary theory, is heavily Freudian and/or neo-Freudian. Jung is virtually absent here.

From the sciences side his ideas find difficulties in being experimentally verified (even though, intriguingly, his conceptions are tracking out as correspondent to hypothetical positions being established in regions of neuroscience or work with dreams for example. This is discussed in papers and books by a neuroscientist Erik Goodwyn, and Jungian analysts Jean Knox and John Haule, among others).

Alongside this the thing with Jung is you have to do stuff and engage regions of consciousness both interiorly and externally in a different manner; ego becomes a shifted smaller center of consciousness, assumptions are deconstructed, everything initially starts to fall apart, looks frightening or becomes strange (i.e., psyche and world become entangled in a puzzling manner, projections have to be identified, reversed, owned etc etc). There's effort and work involved in employing his ideas, and they're an idiosyncratic paradigm, they aren't easily able to be plugged into more contemporary conceptions and models unless this has become developed in ones thought and, arguably, post-Jungian developments have become factored in (such as is pointed out in the OP here for example; others ideas and models trace back to or out of Jung).

The process he elucidates and maps - which he is also careful to highlight he was only a pioneer in and others need to pick up the work to continue it - is transformative and significantly involves altered states and conditions of consciousness, also a still controversial and contested space with varying degrees of receptivity or spaces of validation in the academy (again it depends). It is also slow and painful and deeply complex with multiple layers, possibilities of reading and entry points. Where is the time or space to really engage in this kind of material in academic performance contexts? I struggled with it in a fine arts context (in the end I decided I wasn't really doing art, nor was an artist, but was primarily engaged in a kind of psychotherapy).

That's just some of my musings on possibilities, take that with a salt-mine of salt ;). There's probably more accurate takes on it, and no doubt Jungian scholars, like the brilliant Sonu Shamdasani and other post-Jungians have a more informed point of view (so looking into their writing about it is probably the way to go to gain a clearer vision on this matter).

I've just become aware of a book that Dr Susan Rowland has written called C.G. Jung in the Humanities: Taking the Soul's Path. Perhaps some of the concerns linked to your question are discussed in there?

There was also recently a post and thread that some of the community contributed other takes on regarding how Jung is situated in psychology or among the psychotherapies here. There's some good moments of insight in that content even if it does wander a bit into other thickets..

OP; thanks for sharing this post, a good spot. Apologies if my own comments here have diverted into other regions of concern..