Carl Jung's Concept of Individuation - Literature review Example

A Review of Carl Jung’s Process of Individuation Introduction Jung referred to the process when objects of the unconscious pays off, and is integrated into consciousness, the ‘individuation process’ (Huskinson 2004, 43). The process of individuation is hence the forceful interaction of opposites, where in opposites are vigorously balanced to create a new harmony. This harmony is Jung’s idea of the ‘self’ (Bishop 2000): Individuation means becoming a single, homogenous being, and, in so far as ‘individuality’ embraces our innermost, last, and incomparable uniqueness, it also implies becoming one’s own self. We could therefore translate individuation as ‘coming to selfhood’ or ‘self-realization’ (ibid, p. 226). Self-awareness involves an understanding of the opposites’ structures innate within the consciousness. It has been claimed that the psyche is made up of a series of inherent roles that are constructed as couples of opposites, and the conscious’s structure, in its function as counterbalance to the psyche, is itself encountered by the person as a great antithetical factor (Stevens 2002). As a factor of ‘compensation the unconscious’ (ibid, p. 63), even if itself beyond understanding, should direct its energy in line with those compositions of the psyche that it will influence, and it is logical to assume that the unconscious also has direction and ‘structure’ (Bishop 2000). Definitely, Jung in effect ascribes an organization of the unconscious when he partitions it into a collective and personal dimension (Huskinson 2004): [T]he personal unconscious… includes all those psychic contents which have been forgotten during the course of the individual’s life… In addition it contains all subliminal impressions or perceptions which have too little energy to reach consciousness. To these we must add unconscious world. Though they themselves are not conscious, conscious images and ideas are variations on them (ibid, 42). The individuation process normally involves going through a series of classic visual ‘representations’, which balance the consciousness and suggest to the person the way the opposites interact within him and the level of progress that has been accomplished toward their union (Bishop 2000). Prototypes are symbolically transformed from their unconscious origins to consciousness, in order for the prototypes to surface within dreams and in other expressions of the unconscious, in ‘visions, fantasies, emotions, grotesque ideas, and so forth’ (Jung, Adler, & Hull 1981, 283). The process of individuation is a lengthy and difficult process where in the consciousness’s opposites and the unconscious fusion into a union. A series of conventional circumstances and figures are stumbled upon along the way. If the necessary conditions are present, these archetypes are received and integrated into consciousness (Bishop 2000). As argued by Jung, the ‘acceptance’ of an individual of one prototype compels him to interact with others; this process concludes in the recognition of the ‘prototypes of prototypes’, the prototype par excellence’ (Huskinson 2004, 44), the whole ‘self’, or the ‘totality of the personality, where all opposites are united, and consciousness is enriched in its coordination with the personal and collective unconscious’ (ibid, p. 44). Carl Jung does not openly identify the individuation process, so that it is not possible to be definite of the particular stages required in the steady merging of opposites. Jung clarifies that he does not wish to describe each stage in the context of a wide-ranging teleological creation that relates to every person (Jung et al. 1981): “How the harmonizing of conscious and unconscious data is to be undertaken cannot be indicated in the form of a recipe” (ibid, p. 289). Furthermore, it is evident that the typical encounters do not essentially generate a linear sequence, but can also be perceived as spherical. As stated by the circular idea, it would appear that an interaction with a specific prototype could take place whenever (Stevens 2002). It is not confined or designated a particular place in the intuitive arrangement of things; instead it naturally appears at a time suitable to the person involved (Bishop 2000). Nevertheless, typically we see in the works of Jung mention of a process of conventional encounters. The Stages of the Process of Individuation The process of individuation usually starts with the clash of the individual unconscious, where people incorporate their ignored predispositions represented by the ‘shadow’ epitome (Jung et al. 1981). Henceforth, the collective psyche should be dealt with, in which the contra-sexual aspect of the person is experienced, characterized by the anima/animus (Jung 1992). Ultimately, the prototype of the ‘Self’ is experienced. Once this is recognized, the person recognizes the entirety of his being (Huskinson 2004). Moreover, Jung’s argument of the process of individuation in ‘Aion’ studies the typical figures in this series, reinforcing the idea of a linear structure of experience (ibid, p. 44). In line with this idea, it is possible for individuals to appraise how far they have advanced towards the final stage, the ‘Self’, because it offers a teleological chart to trace the ascending stages of the unification of the unconscious and the consciousness. (Stevens 2002). Specifically, by giving thorough consideration of the designs of archetypal forms within their reveries, persons should be capable of evaluating which stage in the individuation process they have attained (Bishop 2000). Such precision and appropriateness would be unattainable with a spherical process. The shadow is the initial prototype figure to be experienced in the process of individuation because it is the most easily reached (Huskinson 2004): ‘Its nature can in large measure be inferred from the contents of the personal unconscious’ (ibid, p. 45). This first archetypal figure is the most evident prototype to the individual as it signifies the core opposite of his conscious biased judgment; it is the lower role and attitude form within the psyche (Jung et al. 1981). To assimilate the shadow into the psyche is to turn down the ‘sick animal’ (ibid, 273) with his tendency to support one opposite in the twofold duo, for its integration requires the recognition of the ignored opposite, and hence a union of opposites. Jung argues, “With insight and good will the shadow can to some extent be assimilated into the conscious personality” (Stevens 2002, 81). Nevertheless, Jung (1992) also emphasizes that there can be opposition to this incorporation, particularly ‘projection’, where several attributes unique to the person’s shadow are expressed outside of that person and look like attributes within another individual. The shadow is frequently denied because it is of an opposite character and frequently seems foreign or even morally wrong (Jung 1992). The process of projection functions as a defense mechanism to eliminate the shadow-components from the psyche into the external world (Stevens 2002). Jung argues: “He must be convinced that he throws a very long shadow before he is willing to withdraw his emotionally-toned projections from their object” (Huskinson 2004, 45). He carries on arguing that these projections are believed to be a part of the dimension of the shadow, specifically, of the negative aspect of the behavior. This premise becomes unsustainable after a definite level, because the representations that afterwards arise no longer denote the ‘same but to the opposite sex’ (ibid, p. 45), in the case of a woman to a man and vice versa. The origin of the projections is not the shadow anymore—which is constantly the same sex as the focus—but an opposite sex figure (Huskinson 2004). In the straight individuation process, it is, hence, through confronting an opposition in the integration of the shadow into consciousness that the epitome of the animus—of a woman—and of the anima—of a man--- is confronted (Bishop 2000). If the shadow is encountered at the onset—as the direct opposite of the conscious path—the epitome of animus/anima is the second group of opposites to be encountered (Bishop 2000). The assimilation of this archetype into the psyche denotes the unification of sexes: ‘the anima is the feminine component of the unconscious female psyche, while the animus is the male component of the unconscious female psyche’ (Huskinson 2004, 45). The anima represents love or ‘eros’, whereas animus is a representation of ‘intellect’ and ‘spirit’ (ibid, p. 45). The classic representation of the anima is often singular to balance the core masculine inclination to single out, whereas the representation of the animus is often plural to balance the core female inclination to synthesize and harmonize (Jung et al. 1981). Therefore, the animus/anima, similar to the shadow, balances the individual’s persona—his biased conscious predisposition (Jung 1992). Jung argues (Jung 1992): The persona, the ideal picture of a man as he should be, is inwardly compensated by feminine weakness and as the individual outwardly plays the strong man, so he becomes inwardly a woman, i.e., the anima, for it is the anima that reacts to the persona (ibid, p. 194). The animus/anima and persona are dichotomies; as the persona embodies the external conscious outlook, the animus/anima embodies the innate unconscious orientation. The animus/anima encloses all those human features that are lacking in the persona. Hence, ‘if the persona is intellectual, the anima will quite certainly be sentimental’ (Huskinson 2004, 46); hence the nature of the anima can be worked out from that of the personality. The whole lot that should inherently be in the external judgment, but is obviously missing, will consistently be unearthed in the inner outlook (Jung 1992). The animus/anima does not include only pessimistic outlooks, as the shadow often does; it can possess attributes of a negative or positive nature relying on those of the personality (Bishop 2000). The attainment of the animus/anima alongside the shadow is vital to the disbanding of the biased persona and to the unification process of opposites (Bishop 2000). In this idea it would appear that the unification process of the opposites starts with an unraveling of the individual unconscious, in where the shadow belongs (Huskinson 2004). This is unraveled by a matter of determination: the person should verify its substance by acknowledging all features (functions and outlooks) of his/her entire persona, and afterwards by identifying which are missing from the conscious attitude (Huskinson 2004)—an aspect that is suggested by those unpleasant emotions that the individual may instinctively manifest to others. The individuation process goes on with the unearthing of the collective conscious, in where the animus/anima belongs. This second stage is activated by the first. According to Jung, this takes place when the initial stage ‘becomes untenable after a certain point’ (Jung 1981, 276). The specifications of how the conversion is carried out from the initial stage to the next (from assimilating the individual unconscious into consciousness to the integration of the group unconscious into consciousness) were not clarified by Jung (Stevens 2002). The suggestion is that the opposition encountered in the initial stage, attributable to the attempt to assimilate the shadow, by some means sets off archetypal function from the animus/anima (Stevens 2002). Yet, this means that the shadow has not yet been effectively assimilated into consciousness, thus making additional advancement in individuation implausible. Similarly, Jung informs us that when the animus/anima has been productively integrated into consciousness ‘the unconscious again changes its dominant character and appears again in a new symbolic form, representing the Self, the innermost nucleus of the psyche’ (Huskinson 2004, 47). Therefore, it would appear that the evolutionary stages in the process of unifying dualities are not an issue of intellectual analysis; instead, the course is unconscious that is defined merely by natural symbolic representations that are connected by no obvious causal link (Bishop 2000). The three stages in the process of individuation can hence be viewed as one. When the lower unconscious attributes—‘symbolized by both stages one and two: the archetypes of the shadow and anima/animus’ (Huskinson 2004, 47)—are transformed into consciousness, the mind is not manifested anymore in prejudiced terms as supporting one dichotomy, but is manifested as supporting a balance between the opposites (Huskinson 2004). The dichotomies of the psyche are not linked anymore by contradiction but by compensation and union, and this psychic condition of balance is itself represented by the third stage, the Self (Jung et al. 1981)—the core of wholeness, which encompasses both unconsciousness and consciousness at the same time as the ego is the core of consciousness. It is difficult to understand the transition between the stages of the process of individuation. I understand this progress as the steady union of dichotomies or opposites, and I think that a more systematic knowledge of this process can be discovered in the alchemical works of Jung. Jung connects his process of individuation and the process of alchemy (Huskinson 2004); even though the interpretation of Jung of the alchemical process is plagued with incomprehensible and frequently obscure images, I think a general system and organized stages, where in opposites are increasingly unified, can be determined. Once this has been verified, we should be more capable of making sense of the transition between the stages of the process of individuation. Conclusions Basically, Jung is saying that we should get hold of the first stage (the shadow) and the second (anima/animus) before we can genuinely get hold of the third stage (the Self). The organization of the stages is chronological, and as appealing as it may be to attempt and pass over the ‘shadow’ or confront it shallowly, it is at this point that we set off. Jung called this first stage as ‘the First Act of Courage’ (Bishop 2000, 59). He informs us that the very first step that is required in understanding our own shadow is merely to acknowledge that it is present. It seems apparent, but there are individuals for whom the idea of truly possessing a negative side to their persona is very awkward. However, this is one of the main justifications for going through the ‘Shadow work’, for that which we have yet reject in our own selves will be manifested outwards. One of the indications to manifestation of shadow substance is the level of negative feeling stimulated in us by things in the external world—frequently other individuals. ‘Projection’, as Carl Jung refers to it, is escorted by emotion or sentiment. Jung differentiated between ‘emotion’ and ‘feeling’. If a projection of a phenomenon which is at the core personal is lacking, it is plausible to assess something outward as being ‘harmful’, without being extremely frustrated, enduring, at most, from a feeling of guilt or disappointment. If the sentiment is greater than that, in that case, we may wish to contemplate on what we see in ourselves that is arousing that kind of emotion. Therefore, it is vital to consider that not all manifestation is negative, that at some point it may all be manifestation given our personal points of view, and that there is a space humanity for virtuous resentment which inspires action for change. A major advantage of taking out our shadow projections and taking hold of our own ‘thing’ is that the outside world may cheer up somewhat for ourselves and for the people around us, for we will not be manifesting a great deal of a pessimistic persona superficially and declaring, “Life’s a bitch”. References Bishop, Paul. Jung in Contexts: A Reader. New York: Routledge, 2000. Huskinson, Lucy. Nietzsche and Jung: The Whole Self in the Union of Opposites. New York: Routledge, 2004. Jung, C.G., Gerhard Adler & R.F.C. Hull. The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. New York: Princeton University Press, 1981. Jung, C.G. Two Essays on Analytical Psychology: Second Edition. New York: Routledge, 1992. Stevens, Anthony. Archetype Revisited: An Updated Natural History of the Self. New York: Brunner-Routledge, 2002. Read More