Archetypes, Collective Unconscious, and Synchronicity: The Thoughts of Carl Jung - Coursework Example

Archetypes, Collective Unconscious, and Synchroni The Thoughts of Carl Jung YOUR FULL THE OF YOUR SCHOOL OR Archetypes, Collective Unconscious, and Synchronicity: The Thoughts of Carl Jung Of all the notable figures in modern psychology, Carl Jung occupies a place of both significant contribution and substantial controversy. Noting many of the applicable labels advanced by critics and admirers alike, Sonu Shamdasani writes that “...the number of divergent views and interpretations of Jung has prodigiously multiplied. He has become a figure upon whom an endless succession of myths, legends, fantasies, and fictions continues to be draped” (2003, p. 1). There are a variety of possible reasons behind these perceptions, some of which will be addressed here. After providing a short biography, this paper will address some of the background elements that might have influenced his theories, mention three of the theories themselves in terms of their contribution to psychology, note some objections leveled at Jung’s ideas, and conclude with my own personal thoughts on his theories. Brief Biography Carl Gustav Jung was born in 1875 on the Swiss shore of Lake Constance to Paul and Emilie Jung, a village pastor and the youngest daughter of a famous-but-eccentric theologian (Stevens, 2001, p. 2). Jung’s father died when he was still in school and, although his first career choice was that of a medical doctor, he was precluded from pursuing this career path due to the fact that he could not afford to do so; he opted instead, to go to work as an assistant at the Bergholzli asylum proximate to Zurich (Daniels, 2003, p. 24). He met and developed a friendship with Sigmund Freud, with whom he corresponded often until a series of philosophical and perceptive differences caused the break (Stevens, 2001, pp. 18-24). He married and had a family and, although seemingly happy with his wife Emma, nevertheless engaged in several well-documented affairs. After World War I, he spent much of his time traveling and writing much of the work we have today. He died in 1961. Influential Background There are many aspects of Jung’s life and experiences that can be seen in his subsequent work; so much so that they lie far beyond the scope of this paper. There are a few, however, that should be mentioned to provide context for the theories and his contribution to society which follow. The first is the environment in which Jung developed. In speaking of the period of time between the 1870s and 1930s, one author notes that “the major disciplinary and theoretical forms of modern psychology and psychotherapy were established” (Shamdasani, 2003, p. 10). It was in this culture of change and development that Jung went to school, spent nine years at the Bergholzli asylum, formed and broke his relationship with Freud, had his many dreams and near-psychotic breaks, and generally formed the foundations of his thinking. Many of his theories, three of which are named below, can be traced to this developmental era of re-thinking the philosophy and science of psychology. Another event in Jung’s life that bears mention is his relationship with his mother. Specifically when, as a young boy who slept with his father (his parents kept separate bedrooms), she had a breakdown “for which she had to spend several months in the hospital, and this enforced separation at a critical stage in his development seems to have affected Jung for the rest of his life” (Stevens, 2001, p. 3). This maternal separation seemed to have had a great influence on his concept of “anima (the female complex in his unconscious)”, and is cited as a possible reason for his numerous affairs as well as his apparent habit of surrounding himself with women (Stevens, 2001, pp. 26-27). A third influential event would have to be his six year correspondence and friendship with Sigmund Freud. As Jung developed from student to an independent thinker, he was often suppressed by Freud, particularly when his ideas expanded beyond or contradicted Freud’s. Ultimately, the conflict forced Jung to evaluate, develop, and articulate his concepts which precipitated the final break in the relationship; but the process was certainly influential in his psychological development. Contribution to Humanity Jung’s contributions to the field of psychology are numerous and, as previously noted, controversial. He, himself, was conflicted in many areas, e.g., he denied that he was a philosopher but realized that “nothing is more dangerous to a psychologist than being grounded in a wrongheaded philosophy,” as well as that “the corrective movement is not in eschewing philosophy, becoming a non- or anti-philosopher” but rather accepting that psychology and philosophy are related (Bishop, 1999, p. 194). Many of his ideas reflect a circular thought process. Of the many contributions Jung made, there are three that will be discussed here; the idea of a psychological archetype, the collective unconscious, and synchronicity. Jung developed several insights into what he phrased as an archetype. In general discourse, an archetype is a typical or representative element of a concept. In Jungian psychology, however, the archetype is an image or behavior inherited from the pool of human ancestry, where “’the collective unconscious contains the whole spiritual heritage of mankind’s evolution, born anew in the brain structure of every individual’ (CW 8, para. 342) [and] there are indeed universal forms of instinctive and social behaviour” which point to the same biological processes related to evolution similarly found in anatomical or physiological structures (Stevens, 2002, p. 52, quoting Read, Fordham, & Adler, 1953). One of the main Jungian archetypes, previously mentioned, is the anima where the ideal of womanhood in all of its perceived manifestations, e.g., a wife, exist in a man’s mind. A classic extrapolation of this archetype in a man’s behavior is the man who marries the woman he sees in his mind rather than the woman herself; and awakes one day to find that he has made a terrible mistake. For Jung, this archetypical model is derived from the collective unconscious. The second major contribution, the collective unconscious, relates to the archetype as the source of its conventions. As the name suggests, Jung saw this as a pool of knowledge that is not obviously recognized by the individual, but derived from the experience of humanity; and biologically imprinted upon every human. As Pietikainen notes, Jung “argued that since the ‘deeper layers’ of the human psyche are everywhere the same, people living in different cultures are united by these archetypes in the sense that there are universal human experiences that are structured by them” (2001, p. 41). This particular observation, and its claim of being based in evolutionary physiology, has received much criticism from modern academics. The final contribution noted here is called synchronicity, and has to do with events that appear to be coincidental. “According to Jung, two or more events constitute synchronicity when a meaningful connection—meaningful association—can be made between the events,” but only when the meaning itself is the connecting “principle between the events with no causal connections” (Storm, 1999, p. 247). Thus, events that have no otherwise observable connection except their meaningfulness to the observer are representing the concept of synchronicity; it is an attempt to explain events that have a surprising connection in the mind of the observer, but not a logical one. For example, Henry quotes a famous example of synchronicity concerning the man who “came across [plum pudding] three times in his life”; first as a school boy given the treat by a particular man, then years later in a restaurant he was asked to share the last portion of plum pudding and found that he was sharing it with the same man, and finally years later he attended a dinner where plum pudding was served and “amused himself with the thought” that the man would soon join the party—which the man did just as the pudding was being served (Henry, 2004, p. 167). Obviously, there was not logical or causal connection, but the association with the pudding and the man was meaningful and constituted synchronicity. Criticism The theories espoused by Jung have come under considerable criticism from various schools of thought. The primary attack on ideas like the collective unconscious and synchronicity stem from the fact that they are not scientifically derived; nor can they be empirically observed, measured, or verified by any scientific method. Jung’s presentation of these things as rooted in science, i.e., evolution, is highly suspect in the minds of many scholars because of the lack of scientific methodology and the appearance, at least on its face, of being a more philosophical or spiritually derived concept. To infer that there is a basic “knowledge” within the sub-conscious of all humans is a perfectly rational philosophical notion or spiritual belief. To say that it is physiological through evolutionary processes is difficult to prove, and to actually observe such a phenomenon is impossible. Other criticisms of Jung center on the man himself. For example, some question how a man with mistresses who compels his wife’s cooperation in the arrangement (calling him misogynistic) can properly frame the archetype of the anima. Others suggest that the whole concept of anima stems from the childhood incident of being separated from his mother and is a simple compensatory theory to justify or explain his own feelings. Personal Opinion As for my own opinion, I find Jung to be interesting and like some of his ideas more than others. The notion that there is an archetypical concept that extends through individuals or a society representing an ideal is shared by many scholars and philosophers, and I think that it is a sound theory. I am not convinced, however, that such an archetypical perception is the result of evolutionary physiology. I do not think that there is a collective unconscious that is somehow genetically derived, and cannot see any way to employ a scientific methodology to prove otherwise. Accordingly, as a philosophy that is Jung’s perception, I understand it but I don’t find it compelling and I don’t see it as scientific. I am intrigued by the idea of synchronicity; who hasn’t had an apparently acausal occurrence in their life and then drawn a meaningful connection if, for no other reason, than to note its unusualness. I appreciate the attempt to explain the phenomenon, and think that Jung’s ideas are interesting. I am not, however, just quite ready to believe everything I have read. References Bishop, P. (Ed.) (1999). Jung in Contexts: A Reader. London: Routledge. Daniels, A. (2003). Carl Jung: The Madame Blavatsky of Psychotherapy. New Criterion, 22 (3), 23-27. Henry, J. (Ed.) (2004). Parapsychology: Research on Exceptional Experiences. New York: Routledge. Pietikainen, P. (2001). Dynamic Psychology, Utopia, and Escape from History: The Case of C.G. Jung. Utopian Studies, 12 (1), 41. Read, M., Fordham, M., & Adler, G. (Eds.) (1953-78). The Collected Works of C.G. Jung. London: Routledge. Shamdasani, S. (2003). Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology: The Dream of a Science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Stevens, A. (2001). Jung: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stevens, A. (2002). Archetype Revisited: An Updated Natural history of the Self. London: Brunner-Routledge. Storm, L. (1999). Synchronicity, Causality and Acausality. The Journal of Parapsychology, 63 (3), 247. Read More