Carl Jung on Individuation Lexicon.
Individuation:
A process of psychological differentiation, having for its goal the development of the individual personality.
In general, it is the process by which individual beings are formed and differentiated; in particular, it is the development of the psychological individual as a being distinct from the general, collective psychology.[Ibid., par. 757.]
The aim of individuation is nothing less than to divest the self of the false wrappings of the persona on the one hand, and of the suggestive power of primordial images on the other.[“The Function of the Unconscious,” CW 7, par. 269. ]
Individuation is a process informed by the archetypal ideal of wholeness, which in turn depends on a vital relationship between ego and unconscious. The aim is not to overcome one’s personal psychology, to become perfect, but to become familiar with it. Thus individuation involves an increasing awareness of one’s unique psychological reality, including personal strengths and limitations, and at the same time a deeper appreciation of humanity in general.
As the individual is not just a single, separate being, but by his very existence presupposes a collective relationship, it follows that the process of individuation must lead to more intense and broader collective relationships and not to isolation.[“Definitions,” CW 6, par. 758.]
Individuation does not shut one out from the world, but gathers the world to itself.[“On the Nature of the Psyche,” CW 8, par. 432.]
Individuation has two principle aspects: in the first place it is an internal and subjective process of integration, and in the second it is an equally indispensable process of objective relationship. Neither can exist without the other, although sometimes the one and sometimes the other predominates.[“The Psychology of the Transference,” CW 16, par. 448.]
Individuation and a life lived by collective values are nevertheless two divergent destinies. In Jung’s view they are related to one another by guilt. Whoever embarks on the personal path becomes to some extent estranged from collective values, but does not thereby lose those aspects of the psyche which are inherently collective. To atone for this “desertion,” the individual is obliged to create something of worth for the benefit of society.
Individuation cuts one off from personal conformity and hence from collectivity. That is the guilt which the individuant leaves behind him for the world, that is the guilt he must endeavor to redeem. He must offer a ransom in place of himself, that is, he must bring forth values which are an equivalent substitute for his absence in the collective personal sphere.
Without this production of values, final individuation is immoral and-more than that-suicidal. . . . The individuant has no a priori claim to any kind of esteem. He has to be content with whatever esteem flows to him from outside by virtue of the values he creates. Not only has society a right, it also has a duty to condemn the individuant if he fails to create equivalent values.[“Adaptation, Individuation, Collectivity,” CW 18, pars. 1095f.]
Individuation differs from individualism in that the former deviates from collective norms but retains respect for them, while the latter eschews them entirely.
A real conflict with the collective norm arises only when an individual way is raised to a norm, which is the actual aim of extreme individualism. Naturally this aim is pathological and inimical to life. It has, accordingly, nothing to do with individuation, which, though it may strike out on an individual bypath, precisely on that account needs the norm for its orientation to society and for the vitally necessary relationship of the individual to society. Individuation, therefore, leads to a natural esteem for the collective norm. [“Definitions,” CW 6, par. 761.]
The process of individuation, consciously pursued, leads to the realization of the self as a psychic reality greater than the ego. Thus individuation is essentially different from the process of simply becoming conscious.
The goal of the individuation process is the synthesis of the self. [“The Psychology of the Child Archetype,” CW 9i, par. 278.]
Again and again I note that the individuation process is confused with the coming of the ego into consciousness and that the ego is in consequence identified with the self, which naturally produces a hopeless conceptual muddle. Individuation is then nothing but ego-centredness and autoeroticism. But the self comprises infinitely more than a mere ego, as the symbolism has shown from of old. It is as much one’s self, and all other selves, as the ego.[“On the Nature of the Psyche,” CW 8, par. 432.]
In Jung’s view, no one is ever completely individuated. While the goal is wholeness and a healthy working relationship with the self, the true value of individuation lies in what happens along the way.
The goal is important only as an idea; the essential thing is the opus which leads to the goal: that is the goal of a lifetime.[“The Psychology of the Transference,” CW 16, par. 400.]
Carl Jung: Natural transformation (individuation)
234 h. Natural transformation (individuation). As I have pointed out, in addition to the technical processes of transformation there are also natural transformations.
All ideas of rebirth are founded on this fact.
Nature herself demands a death and a rebirth. As the alchemist Democritus says: “Nature rejoices in nature, nature subdues nature, nature rules over nature.”
There are natural transformation processes which simply happen to us, whether we like it or not, and whether we know it or not.
These processes develop considerable psychic effects, which would be sufficient in themselves to make any thoughtful person ask himself what really happened to him.
Like the old man in our fairytale, he, too, will draw mandalas and seek shelter in their protective circle; in the perplexity and anguish of his
self-chosen prison, which he had deemed a refuge, he is transformed
into a being akin to the gods. Mandalas are birth-places, vessels of birth in the most literal sense, lotus-flowers in which a Buddha comes to life.
Sitting in the lotus-seat, the yogi sees himself transfigured into an immortal.
Natural transformation processes announce themselves mainly in dreams. Elsewhere 24
I have presented a series of dream-symbols of the process of individuation.
They were dreams which without exception exhibited rebirth symbolism.
In this particular case there was a long-drawn-out process of 24 Cf. Psychology and Alchemy, Part II.
inner transformation and rebirth into another being.
This “other being” is the other person in ourselves—that larger and greater personality maturing within us, whom we have already met as the inner friend of the soul.
That is why we take comfort whenever we find the friend and companion depicted in a ritual, an example being the friendship between Mithras and the sungod.
This relationship is a mystery to the scientific intellect, because the intellect is accustomed to regard these things un·sympathetically.
But if it made allowance for feeling, we would discover that it is the friend whom the sun-god takes with him on his chariot, as shown in the monuments.
It is the representation of a friendship between two men which is simply the outer reflection of an inner fact: it reveals our relationship to that
inner friend of the soul into whom
Nature herself would like to change us—that other person who we also are and yet can never attain to completely.
We are that pair of Dioscuri, one of whom is mortal and the other immortal, and who, though always together, can never be made completely one.
The transformation processes strive to approximate them to one another, but our consciousness is aware of resistances, because the other person
seems strange and uncanny, and because we cannot get accustomed to the idea that we are not absolute master in our own house.
We should prefer to be always “I” and nothing else.
But we are confronted with that inner friend or foe, and whether he is our friend or our foe depends on ourselves.
You need not be insane to hear his voice.
On the contrary, it is the simplest and most natural thing imaginable.
For instance, you can ask yourself a question to which “he” gives answer.
The discussion is then carried on as in any other conversation.
You can describe it as mere “associating” or “talking to oneself,” or as a “meditation” in the sense used by the old alchemists, who referred to their interlocutor as aliquem aliurn internum, ‘a certain other one, within.’ 25
This form of colloquy with the friend of the soul was even admitted by Ignatius Loyola into the technique of his Exercitia spiritualia/6 but with
the limiting condition that only the person meditating is allowed to speak, whereas the inner responses are passed over as being merely human and therefore to be repudiated.
This state of things has continued down to the present day.
It is no longer a moral or metaphysical prejudice, but—what is much worse — an intellectual one.
The “voice” is explained as nothing but “associating,” pursued in a witless way and running on and on without sense or purpose, like the works of a clock that has no dial.
Or we say “It is only my own thoughts!” even if, on closer inspection, it should turn out that they are thoughts which we either reject or had never consciously thought at alias if everything psychic that is glimpsed by the ego had always formed part of it!
Naturally this hybris serves the useful purpose of maintaining the supremacy of ego-consciousness, which must be safeguarded against dissolution into the unconscious.
But it breaks down ignominiously if ever the unconscious should choose to let some nonsensical idea become an obsession or to produce other psychogenic symptoms, for which we would not like to accept responsibility on any account. ~Carl Jung, CW 9i, Para 234-236
jungian lexicon
