JUNG'S ALCHEMY
|
collective unconscious
collective
unconscious alchemy
illuminate us
Back to summary
Jung distinguishes between three levels in the psyche: the consciousness; the personal unconscious; and the collective unconscious. In his clinical practice, he found that certain delusions of schizophrenics and dreams of comparatively healthy individuals ran parallel with mythic material of which the patient knew nothing. This "argued a common source: a myth-producing level of mind which was common to all men." (Storr, 15-16)
The collective unconscious, Jung argued, was made up of archetypes: powerful, primordial images such as the death and rebirth motif of the Phoenix. He stressed that these archetypes are images, not ideas:
...archetypes are not determined as regards their content, but only as regards their form and then only to a very limited degree. A primordial image is determined as to its content only when it has become conscious and is therefore filled out with the material of conscious experience. (Jung, 1998: 84)
Certain archetypes may invite certain ideas, such as the Mother archetype, but it does not follow that these ideas will be in harmony: Binah, of the Qabala, for instance (the Qabala is closely related to alchemy), is both the giver and taker of life, the Terrible Mother, and the nurturer. Only when these motifs emerge in the conscious mind, are they filled out with content.
We access these archetypes through their repetition in religious and myth-systems (ibid, 65), in certain types of dreams felt to be visionary, or unusually affective, and in delusions. It is worth noting that unconcious contents - whether personal or collective - are experienced as external forces: they are exactly that which is unconscious, not recognised as part of ourselves. Archetypes in particular are experienced as having "profound spiritual significance" (Storr, 16). Further, only unconscious material is projected, without the knowledge or will of the conscious mind: "it is not the conscious subject but the unconscious which does the projecting. Hence one meets with projections, one does not make them." (ibid, 92) Material is projected onto other individuals, onto nature (as in the Egyptian sun god, Ra), or onto aspects of our own culture. Thus, what we regard as a cause for change - such as new technology - is not quite as determinist as we may think. Erik Davis discusses this in Techgnosis: myth, magic + mysticism in the age of information:
Though we may think of technology as a tool defined by pragmatic and utilitarian concerns alone, human motivations in the matter of technology are rarely so straightforward. Like the rationality we carry within our minds, whose logical convictions must make their way through the brawling, boozing cabaret of the psyche, technologies are shaped and constrained by the warp and woof of culture, with its own peculiar myths, dreams, cruelties, and hungers. (10)
Add to this that unconscious contents are projected onto suitable material - something that already contains elements of what we are so determined to see in it - and pinning down the "true cause" becomes a red herring. The world wide web, for instance, has aspects of both freedom and totalitarianism: we cannot say that our projections are solely responsible for the hype that surrounds it, nor can we disregard their effect. Rather, we should abandon the internal/external dichotomy and see in them the delicate balance of interdependence.
Whether this collective unconscious literally exists is debatable. One can still argue that common motifs are transmitted by other means: by a common origin to civilisation lost in this mists of prehistory, but still imprinting our cultures and religions; by cryptomnesia - the acquisition of knowledge one has no conscious memory of learning; and so forth. It may simply be an operative fiction: not necessarily true in a literal sense, but useful to believe as a model for understanding subtle transferences of attitude, assumption, and belief.
Other terms are called on to perform similar work, but I would argue these are more limited. The "dominant world-view", for instance, is more accessible, but suggests an exterior force moulding opinions rather than an internal growth or shift of opinion. "Culture", particularly in postmodern theory, is used to express our current experience of collectivity: this, however, suggests the already conscious experience of previously unconscious elements, where the archetypal images are already filled out with the conscious content limited to one culture. This inhibits a discussion of trends and widespread moods that are not quite conscious, but in the process of becoming so. "Zeitgeist" enables a discussion of collective mood, such as fin de siecle angst, the spirit of nervousness and upheaval that dominates towards the end of a century or millenium. It nevertheless offers more an instance of collective mood than a theoretical backdrop against which to understand it: that a zeitgeist exists does not help us understand where it may come from and how it may operate. I use all these terms in my discussion, where they might be more immediately relevant or comprehensive, but regard them throughout as limited aspects of the more total concept of the collective unconscious.
collective unconscious alchemy illuminate us
Postmodernism
Jung's Alchemy
Western World & The Individual
Hypertext Fiction
Process of Transformation