He was blessed to be surrounded by an educated family, including clergymen. Carl Jung as a young man was a colleague of Freud. His life’s work was exploring the unconscious. Freud’s theory of the unconscious made the unconscious sound unpleasant. It involved crazy desires, incestuous cravings, and frightening experiences that would come back to haunt a person.
Based on Freud’s theory, one would understandably be terrified of making the unconscious conscious. Jung, equipped with a background in Freudian theory, and an infinite knowledge of mythology, religion, and philosophy, had the uncanny ability to make sense of the unconscious and its habit of revealing itself in symbolic form. Jung dreamed very lucid dreams and had occasional vision. Jung’s theory divided the psyche into the ego, the conscious mind, the personal unconscious, anything not presently conscious but can be, and the collective unconscious a kind of knowledge we are born with.
Jung called the collective unconscious archetypes, which are similar to Freud’s theory of instincts. Jung’s theory of Analytical Psychology is prominent in the psychiatric field. His personality typology became very popular and was used to develop a paper-and pencil test call the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Two other personality measures are the Singer-Loomis Type Deployment Inventory and the Personal Preferences Self-Description Questionnaire. His original exploration of the phenomena of synchronicity evolved as a result of collaboration with Wolfgang Pauli. Jung’s idea of a entally healthy person was one that was in touch with themselves, outer world, and one’s unconscious self. His theory of analytical psychology is used in cased studies and as a guide in the field of psychology today. Carl Jung was the founder of the school of Analytical Psychology. He emphasized the importance of the individual and one’s racial and evolutionary development, in determining personality. He claimed the importance of the collective unconscious, the personal unconscious, complexes, and the concept of archetypes, introversion-extroversion, and the use of the word association tests (Lane, Quintar, & Goeltz, 1998).
Freud and Jung were the two most influential pioneers in the development of psychological treatments based on depth psychology. They both emphasized the notions of the mind having many unconscious aspects. These notions were essential and have had the most lasting impact (Ekstrom, 2004). Jung’s longing to bring religion and science together was possibly the strongest drive to influence his explorations of the unconscious. Jung’s father was a protestant preacher who felt that his son had lost his faith. One of the personal reasons Jung wanted to explore the unconscious was his hope to find ways of restoring that faith.
He compared the unconscious to the ideas of powers and gods that make things like dreams happen and other things that somehow arises of its own accord. Jung’s exploration of the unconscious began to flourish soon after his break with Freud. He felt that very little was known about the unconscious. During the early stage of formulations, Jung decided that the unconscious consisted of two layers, one personal and one collective. His ideas were very similar to Freud’s except what Freud regarded as the drive portion of the unconscious, Jung broadened into being a collective layer of archetypal images and energies.
Freud and Jung differed in Freud’s idea of dream censor and primary process. Based on Jung ideas, that could be abandoned and mental imagery approached without a fixed set of assumptions. Jung continued his exploration of the unconscious by relying on experiences in his early career as a psychiatric researcher testing emotionally charged reactions that interrupt normally functioning consciousness. Jung observed psychotic patients as they were confronted with the task of responding to a list of 50 words. He compared their delusional ideas to myths trying to understand them.
Shortly after, he left the hospital position, and broke away from Freud. He began to analyze his own dreams and fantasies in order to further confirm this hypothetical other layer of the unconscious. He began to focus on broader collective elements he called archetypes. Jung believed that archetypes had a regulatory function beyond the sexual drive. His primary treatment for his patients involved treatment of their unconscious. Jung believed that the archetypal images were the principal structural elements of the unconscious that was express in myths and other collective narratives.
His major therapeutic technique was drawing parallels between the archetypal images and his patients’ dreams and fantasies. Delving into psychology more in depth initiated speculations by Freud and Jung and left the specific synaptic and neural materialization of unconscious processes to be inferred. In an attempt to avoid the problem of dualistic thinking and of treating the mind as separate from the body without relying on known data, Jung’s speculation about unconscious archetypes united drives and spirit, matter and psyche, reached for solutions tying human behavior to genetic predispositions. Ekstrom, 2004) Jung believed that people retreated into infantile fantasies as a result of a negative childhood experience which depended on one’s predisposed innate sensitiveness (Aron, 2004). Research has been done in support of Jung’s theory of sensitiveness. Sensitive people exposed to the same amount of stress as a non-sensitive person tend to develop more depression, anxiety, and shyness.
This research conducted by Elaine Aron revisited Jung’s idea of innate sensitiveness by discussing recent research on sensitivity, Jung’s thoughts on the trait, the use of the term by other depth psychologist, and looking at the interaction of the trait with life experiences. The discussions involved attempting to answer question such as why some people are more sensitive than others in a given situation. Aron’s curiosity motivated her to review the psychological literature on the subject. She discovered that there was a correlation between sensitivity and introversion. This discovery prompted research on introversion.
Introversion is usually measured by one’s low degree of sociability. Jung on the other hand defines introversion as the reference to approach a situation by attempting to understand it thoroughly through subjective processing. various Research conducted in the past concluded that introverts are more sensitive to stimuli and stimulants, more vigilant during discrimination tasks, more influenced by implicit learning paradigms, more reflective when given feedback, and slower to acquire and forget information. These findings tended to be more supportive of Jung’s 1921 description of introverts.
Aron interviewed 40 persons from age 18 to 80 that were self-described as highly sensitive and represented a variety of occupations. Thirty percent of them were social extraverts, which contradicted the research literature assessing introversion as mainly low sociability. A 27-item questionnaire was constructed to determine if the contradiction might have been a difference in the nervous systems’ sensitivity and thoroughness of processing. Interviews and survey studies found that sensitivity was moderately related to, but was not the same as social introversion.
A physiological explanation for the high sensitivity is one’s Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) identified by Gray’s (1981, 1985) study. The function of the BIS was to compare present situations with what would be expected based on past experiences, causing an inhibiting action for a short time. This research reflected on how Jung approached and explained innate sensitiveness, shared current research and culture information of others. The research also introduced future ways one might be present with those who have inherited it, which is an on going work of analytical psychology.
Arnau, Green, Rosen, Gleaves, and Melancon discussed the debated issue of whether Jungian preferences are categorical or continuous. The two taxometric methods used to address this issue was MAMBAC and MAXCOV-HITMAX along with 3 personality measures. The three personality measures were the Singer-Loomis Type Deployment Inventory (SL-TDI), the Personal Preferences Self-Description Questionnaire (PPSDQ), and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Based on the result the preferences are continuous. Carl Jung posited that people have one of two attitudes as far as how they are oriented toward the world.
The two attitudes are, external world orientation (extraversion) or the internal world (introversion). He also suggested that people have two different perceptions of the environment and the way they make judgments about their perceptions. One perceived the environment by way of sensation or intuition and one makes judgments by thinking or feeling. These attitudes are prevalent is one’s consciousness and unconsciousness. Tresan searched for the beginning and nature of human consciousness by exploring work of Jung and Freud. Both Freud and Jung addressed the divide that stands between unconsciousness and consciousness, prehistory and history.
They also addressed a before, that could not be realized as such and an after, that made such realization possible (Tresan, 2004). According to Jung the break that lay between the unconscious is Yahwistic deity. That same deity was made conscious through identification with Job. In Jung’s ‘Concerning the two kinds of thinking’ and the first chapter of his book The Psychology of the Unconscious, Freud and Jung derived secondary process thinking from primary process mentality. Initially it appeared that Freud and Jung’s ideas of consciousness were one in the same.
By the close of the first chapter of Jung’s book, one could see four clues that Jung’s views differed from Freud’s. One clue lay in how Jung wrote, another in the footnote that proclaimed that thinking was an act of the soul whereby it became conscious of itself and of other things outside itself. The third clue was in Jung’s statement that a few individuals succeed in throwing off mythology in a time of a certain intellectual supremacy, the majority never do. Finally Jung wrote a quote about why primitives failed to become like us, therefore directed thinking of our time is a more or less modern acquisition, which primitives lacked.
Although his start was with Freud, Jung clearly had unique theories of his own on how one’s mind works, myth and post-modern psychology. Post-modern psychology represents the social mind and the narrative self. The social mind, in opposition of Jung’s position regarding human nature, is the idea that the birth and activity of mental processes is in language-mediated interactions between people (Jones, 2003). The stories we tell about ourselves explains one’s narrative self. This study done by Jones examined the difference between Jung’s view on myth and post-modern psychology.
Jung believed in mythology in psychology and felt that mythmaking was a fundamental psychological process not a cultural activity driven by some other psychological need. According to Jungian theory, one gets to mythic stories by way of archetypes, which he regarded as instinctive but not an instinct. Archetypes are defined as modes of apprehension whether its mythological character is recognized or not. Jung described the archetype as the instinct’s perception of itself where the instinct is the source and the archetype is its mirror-reflection.
According to Segal, to Jung, myth is about the mind, and to narrative psychologists, personal myth is about being in culture. Determining the differences between Jung and post-modern psychology depends on what is being looked at. Different questions generate different answers. In a paper written by Jean Knox (2004), he attempted to reveal that mind and meaning appeared out of developmental processes and the experience of interpersonal relationships. The earliest psychic notions to develop were the image schemas. These image schemas were experienced in non-verbal and embodied ways.
The appearance of archetypes formed the foundations for the development of core meanings as one slowly constructed mental models of the world around. The ability to unite past and present experiences together into a significant story was the next stage in the process. The developed achievement of reflective function materialized and formed the basis for the creation of new patterns of meaning and relationship in analysis, which was at the highest levels of psychic complexity. Previous stages of development influenced the stages that followed yet were governed by their own constraints at that particular level of complexity.
This interaction and the forms that it takes is a challenge for analytical psychology and psychoanalysis today. Jung challenged the theory of two leading nature mythologist’s, Edward Tylor and James Frazer. Their nineteenth-century approach to myth was that science is true and myths false and one had nothing to do with the other (Segal 2003). Jung rejected this belief. His view was that myth was anything but the ‘primitive’ counterpart to modern science, myth and science were not rivals, and that myth did not disappear in the presence of science.
Segal concluded that one should not simply accept the nineteenth-century incompatibility of myth with science because, the restriction of myth to a literal explanation of physical events, fails to account for the array of other functions and meaning that myth harbour. Tylor and Frazer could not have been right because myth is not dead, in fact it has survived the rise of science. Jung was known too for his study of Synchronicity as well as personality, myth and the unconscious. Jung’s initial study of Synchronicity evolved as a result of collaboration with Wolfgang Pauli (Donati, 2004).
It changed from an empirical concept into a fundamental explanatory-interpretative principle. Research by Marialuisa Donati concluded that the synchronicity principle has heuristic value. Pauli and Jung’s discussion of synchronicity crossed the limits of single sciences such as physics and psychology. It took a place within the realm of the philosophy of nature. The heuristic value of synchronicity lead men in their conceptual reflections, gave value in the scientific field, and played a heuristic role with regard to the relationship between science and philosophy..
The archetype hypothesis of Jung and Pauli became an inspiring motive for other scientists’ research activity. Philosophy is no longer considered a simple appendage of science. The symbolic aspects that derived from the discussions Jung and Pauli had went against mainstream science. Reiner examines the relationship between severe early trauma and the development of psychic intuition by exploring the psychological meaning of one patient’s acute receptivity to unconscious communication. Although psychic intuition has a traumatic beginning they are of complex origin and meaning (Reiner, 2004).
There is no specific explanation of why certain people develop psychic intuition or any other creative gift. In this patient’s case, her father encouraged her imagination even though he tormented her. She was also a person open to the transcendent realm. According to Jung the nature of the psyche reaches far beyond the scope of our understanding (Rainer, 2004). Many psychologists and scientists have trouble with Jung because of his views about the mystical interconnectedness of synchronicity. He postulates an unconscious and a collective unconscious that will never be conscious.
His approach is essentially reverse of the mainstream’s reductionism. Jung begins with the highest levels and derives the lower levels of psychology and physiology from them. From a more positive standpoint there is the Myers-Briggs and other tests based on Jung’s types and functions. The tests encourage people to become more aware of themselves and are less threatening. The archetypes might seem to be Jung’s strangest idea, yet they have proven to be useful in the analysis of myths, literature in general, artistic symbolism, and religious exposition.