DEPTH PSYCHOLOGY AND SELF-KNOWLEDGE
Dr. Jung’s Answers to Questions Asked by Dr. J olande Jacobi
Is depth psychology a new way to self ~knowledge?
Yes, depth psychology must be termed a new way, because in
all the methods practiced up to now no account was taken of the
existence of the unconscious.
Thus a new factor has entered our
field of vision, which has seriously complicated and fundamentally
altered the situation.
Formerly, the fact had not been reckoned with
that man is a “twofold” being-a being with a conscious side which
he knows, and an unconscious side of which he knows nothing but
which need be no secret to his fellows.
How often one mal(es all sorts
of mistakes without being conscious of them in the least, while they
are borne in upon others all the more painfully!
Man lives as a
creature whose one hand does not know what the other is doing.
The
recognition that we have to allow for the existence of an unconscious
is a fact of revolutionary importance.
Conscience as an ethical authority
extends only as far as consciousness extends.
When a man
lacks self-knowledge, he can do the most astonishing or terrible
things without calling himself to account and without ever suspecting
what he is doing.
Unconscious actions are always taken for granted
and are therefore not critically evaluated.
One is then surprised at
the incomprehensible reactions of one’s neighbors, whom one holds
to be responsible; that is, one fails to see what one does oneself and
seeks in others the cause of all the consequences that follow from
one’s own actions.
Marriages furnish an instructive example in this respect of how
easily one sees the mote in another’s eye but not the beam in one’s
own.
Of far greater, indeed truly monstrous, proportions are the
projections of war propaganda, when the lamentable bad manners
of civil life are exalted into a principle.
The unwillingness to perceive
one’s own faults and their projection onto others are the source
of most quarrels and the strongest guarantee that injustice, spite, and
persecution will not easily die out.
When one remains unconscious
of oneself, one is frequently unaware of one’s own conflicts; indeed,
the existence of unconscious conflicts is actually held to be impossible.
There are many marriages in which the partners skirt round every
possible conflict with the greatest caution, the one actually imagining
himself to be immune from such things, while the other is filled to
the neck with laboriously repressed complexes and almost choked
by them.
Such a situation often has injurious effects on the children,
too.
We know that children frequently have dreams dealing with the
unconf essed problems of their parents.
These problems weigh upon
the children because the parents, being themselves unconscious of
them, have never attempted to come to grips with their own difficulties,
and this creates something like a poisoning of the atmosphere.
For this reason the neuroses of childhood depend to a considerable
degree upon the parents’ conflicts.
How is depth psychology distinguished from the previous methods
of psyc.hological research? Where does it coalesce with other disciplines?
Psychology up till now took no account of the motivation of
conscious contents due to the existence of the unconscious.
Once
the unconscious is included in the calculation, everything suddenly
gets a double bottom, as it were.
We have to look at everything
from two sides, whereas the old psychology was satisfied with the
contents of consciousness.
Thus the old method of explaining the
appearance of psychogenic ( psychologically caused) symptoms could
rest content with the supposition that they were autosuggested figments
of the imagination.
The modern explanation, which lets the
unconscious psyche of the patient have its say, investigates his dreams,
phantasies, and complexes, i.e., that segment of his life history which
is responsible for the formation of the symptoms.
No one questions
today that neurotic symptoms are produced by processes in the unconscious.
The conscious realization of the unconscious causative factors
therefore has a definite therapeutic value.
Psychogenic symptoms
are products of the unconscious.
These symptoms also include various
opinions and convictions which, though they may be uttered
consciously enough, nevertheless are determined in reality by .. unconscious
motives.
Thus a too importunate and one-sided assertion
of principles can often be traced back to an unconscious failure to
live up to them.
I knew someone, for instance, who, on every occasion,
suitable or not,. paraded the honesty and truthfulness of his
principles before the public.
As I soon discovered, he suffered from
a rather too lively imagination, which now and then seduced him
into gross lies.
The whole question of truth therefore occasioned in
him a not undeserved sentiment d’incompletude, which in turn
moved him to exceptionally loud ethical protestations, no small part
of whose aim was to beget in himself a conviction of honesty.
With the recognition that every conscious process rests in part
upon an unconscious one, and may represent it symbolically, our
previous views of psychic causality are radically called into question.
Direct causal sequences in consciousness appear doubtful, and every
experience of psychic contents urgently requires them to be supplemented
by their unconscious aspect.
Although depth psychology is
a discipline in itself, it lurks invisibly, thanks to the fact of the
unconscious, in the background of all other disciplines.
Just as the
discovery of radioactivity overthrew the old physics and necessitated
a revision of many scientific concepts, so all disciplines that are in
any way concerned with the realm of the psychic are broadened out
· and at the same time remolded by depth psychology.
It raises new
problems for philosophy, it greatly enriches pedagogics and still more
the study of human character; it also poses new problems for criminology,
especially as regards criminal motives; for medicine, it opens
up an unsuspected store of fresh insights and possibilities through
the discovery of the interdependence of bodily and psychic processes
and through the inclusion of the neurotic factor; through it, too, less
closely related sciences such as mythology, ethnology, and so on are
richly fructified.
Are the various schools of depth psychology similar in their
aims?
The differences between the principal schools of depth psychology
up to date are based upon as many different aspects of the
unconscious.
The unconscious possesses a biological, a physiological,
a mythical, a religious aspect, and so on.
This means that the most
varied conceptions are not only possible but even necessary.
Each
has its own justification, though none to the exclusion of others, for
the unconscious is a highly complex phenomenon to which one single
concept can never do justice.
One cannot judge a person from a
moral standpoint only, for example, but has to regard him from this
standpoint, too!
Certain contents of the unconscious can be understood
as strivings for power, others as the expression of sexual or
other drives, while yet others allow no explanation in terms of biological
drives under any circumstances.
Has “analytical psychology,” that is, the Jungian school of depth
psyc.hology, definite guiding principles?
I should prefer not to use the term “guiding principles” in this
connection.
Just because of the extreme variety and complexity of
the aspects of the unconscious and its possible meanings, every
“guiding principle” works as an arbitrary assumption, as an actual
prejudice that tries to anticipate its irrational manifestations, though
these cannot be determined in advance, and perhaps force them
into an unsuitable mold.
One must avoid all assumptions so far as
possible in order to grasp the pure manifestation itself.
This must
carry its own interpretation with it, to such an extent that its significance
is immediately evident from the nature of the phenomenon
and is not forced upon it by the observer.
He must, in fact, accustom
himself to be guided more by the material than by his own opinions,
however well founded they may appear to him.
Every item of psychic
experience presents itself in an individual form, even though its deeper
content may be collective.
One can never determine in advance,
however, which of its principal aspects lies concealed behind the
individual form.
“Guiding principles” are therefore admissible at
most as working hypotheses, and this only in the realm of scientific
research.
The practical material is best accepted mente vacua ( without
any preconceived theories) .
What are the principal tools of analytical psychology?
Does the
interpretation of dreams occupy a central place?
The analytical situation has a fourfold aspect:
(a) The patient
gives me in his own words a picture of the situation as he consciously
sees it.
( b) His dreams give me a compensating picture of the unconscious
aspect of it.
( c) The relational situation in which the
patient is placed vis-a-vis the analyst adds an objective side to the
two other subjective ones.
( d) Working through the material collected
under a, b, and c fills out the total picture of the psychologi00
cal situation.
The necessity of working through it arises from the
fact that the total picture often stands in the liveliest contrast to the
views of the ego-personality and therefore leads to all sorts of intellectual
and emotional reactions and problems, which in their turn
clamor for solution and answer.
Since the final goal of the undertaking
can consist only in restoring the original wholeness of the personality
in a viable form, one cannot dispense with a knowledge of
the unconscious.
The purest product of the unconscious is the dream.
The dream points directly to the unconscious, for it “happens” and
we have not invented it.
It brings us unfalsified material.
What has
passed through consciousness is already sifted and remodeled.
As we
can deduce from the lava ejected by a volcano the constitution of
the strata from which it comes, so we can draw deductions as to the
unconscious situation from the contents of dreams.
Only dream
material added to conscious material reveals the picture of the whole
man.
And only in this way can we find out who our antagonist is.
Although dreams disclose the unconscious to us with perhaps
the nearest approach to faithfulness we can attain, we also come
upon its traces in every form of creative activity, such as music and
poetry, and in .all other forms of art.
It appears in all manifestations
of a spontaneous and creative kind, the further these are removed
from everything mechanical, technical, and intellectual.
As well as
from dreams we can therefore draw conclusions from such things
as drawings in which patients are encouraged to reveal their inner
images.
Although obviously the personality of the patient holds the
center of our attention, and introspection is an indispensable instrument.
of our work in common, yet this is anything rather than
brooding.
Brooding is a sterile activity that only leads back upon
itself and never comes to a reasonable goal.
It is not work but a
weakness, even a vice.
You can, however, when you feel out of sorts,
legitimately make yourself an object of serious investigation, just as
you can earnestly search your conscience without succumbing to
moral weakness.
Whoever is in bad odor with himself, whoever feels
himself to be in need of improvement, whoever, in brief, wants to
“grow” must take counsel with himself.
Unless you change yourself
inwardly, outward changes of the situation are worthless or even
harmful. It is not enough to make a good start, blow yourself up,
and cry: “I take the responsibility!”
Not only mankind but fate
itself would like to know who promises to take this weighty step
and whether it is someone who can take the responsibility.
We all
know that anyone can say so.
The work does not make the man,
but the man the work. Self-searching, even with outside help, is
therefore-or rather should be-the indispensable condition for taking
over higher responsibility, were it only that of realizing the meaning
of individual life in the best possible form and to the fullest
possible degree,· as nature always does, albeit without responsibility,
the latter being the fatefully and divinely allotted task of man.
Is not an important milestone in the development of self-knowledge,
which has increased t,he difficulties of the “way to oneself,”
to be found in the Reformation and in the loss of confession for
Protestants, and so for millions of p·eople?
Has not self-searching
become keener and deeper because of the loss of the dialogue t.hat
the Catholic has with his confessor, and the loss of absolution?
The difficulties have indeed become enormously greater, as
evidenced by the increased prevalence of complexes among Protestants,
which has been statistically established.
But these increased
difficulties constitute-if the Protestant will really face and grapple
with them-an exceptionally advantageous basis for self-knowledge.
They can, however, just as easily lead, precisely because a confessor
is lacking, either to sterile brooding or to thoughtless superficiality.
Most people need a confessor of some kind, otherwise experience does
not provide a real enough basis; without a partner they do not
“hear” themselves, and thus have no check.
Everything flows together
inside and is answered only by oneself, not by someone else,
someone different.
It makes an immense difference whether I confess
my guilt only to myself or to another person.
This being thrown
back upon themselves often leads Protestants to spiritual arrogance
and to isolation in their own ego.
Although analytical psychology
guards against being considered a substitute for confession, in practice
it must often function willy-nilly as such.
There are so many
Catholics who no longer go to confession, and still more Protestants
who do not even know what confession is, that it is not surprising
some of them yield to their need of communication and share their
burdens with an analyst in a way which could almost be called
confession.
The difference, however, is considerable, inasmuch as
the doctor is no priest, no theological and moral authority, but, at
best, a sympathetically listening confidant with some experience of life
and knowledge of human nature.
There is no admonition to repentance
unless the patient does it himself, no penance unless-as is almost
the ruk-he has got himself in a thorough mess, and no absolution
unless God has mercy on him.
Psychology is admittedly only a
makeshift, but at the present time a necessary one.
Were it not a
necessity, it would have collapsed long ago from inner emptiness.
It
meets a need that unquestionably exists.
Does a knowledge of the “other side,” that is, one’s own unconscious
side, bring relief, release?
Does not self-knowle.dge rather
increase the tension between what one is and what one would like
to be?
Being able to talk things over freely can in itself be a great relief.
In general, working with the unconscious brings an increase of
tension at first, because it activates the opposites in the psyche by
making them conscious.
This entirely depends, though, on the situation
from which one starts.
The carefree optimist falls into a depression
because he has now become conscious of the situation he is in.
On the other hand, the pressure on the inwardly-brooding person is
released.
The initial situation decides whether a release or increase
of pressure will result.
Through self-searching in analysis people suddenly
become aware of their real limitations.
How often a woman
has previously felt herself a snow-white dove and had no suspicion
of the devil concealed within her!
Without this knowledge she can
neither be healed nor attain wholeness.
For one person deeper
knowledge of himself is a punishment, for another a blessing.
In
general, every act of conscious realization means a tensing of opposites.
It is in order to avoid this tension that people repress their
conflicts.
But if they become conscious of them, they get into a
corresponding state of tension.
This supplies, in turn, the driving
power for a solution of the problems they are faced with.
Doesn)t preoccupation with oneself lead to egocentricity?
At first glance, from an external and superficial point of view,
it does make one egocentric.
But I consider this justifiable up to a
point. One must occupy oneself with oneself; otherwise one does
not grow, otherwise one can never develop!
One must plant a garden
and give it increasing attention: and care if one wants vegetables;
otherwise only weeds flourish.
“Egocentric” has an unpleas.ant undertone
of pathological egoism.
But, as I have said, occupation with and
meditation on one’s own being is an absolutely legitimate, even
necessary activity if one strives after a real alteration and improvement
of the situation.
Outwardly changing the situation, doing i:;omething
else, forgetting what one was, alters nothing essential.
Indeed,
even when a bad man does good, he is nevertheless not good but
suffers from a good symptom without being altered in character.
How
many drinkers, for example, have turned teetotalers without being
freed from their psychic alcoholism !
And only too soon they succumbed
again to their vice.
There are essentially bad natures that
actually specialize in being good and, if they chance to become some
kind of educator, the results are catastrophic.
A systematic preoccupation
with oneself serves a purpose.
It is work and achievement.
Often, in fact, it is much better to educate oneself first before one
educates others.
It is by no means certain that the man with good
intentions is under all circumstances a good man.
If he is not, then
his best intentions will lead to ruin, as daily experience proves.
Doesn’t an exact knowledge of one’s own nature, with all its
contradictions and absurdities, make one unsure?
Doesn’t it weaken
self-confidence and so lessen the ability to survive in the battle of life?
Much too often people have a pathetic cocksureness which leads
them into nothing but foolishness.
It is better to be unsure because
one then becomes more modest, more humble.
It is true that an inferiority
complex always harbors within it the danger of outdoing
itself and compensating the supposed lack by a flight into the opposite.
Wherever an inferiority complex exists, it has its own good
reason; there actually is an inferiority of some kind, though not precisely
where one thinks it is.
Modesty and humility are not the signs
of an inferiority complex.
They are highly estimable, indeed admirable
virtues and not complexes.
They prove that their fortunate
possessor is no overweening fool, but knows his own limitations and
will therefore never, blind, presumptuous, and intoxicated by his
imagined greatness, stumble beyond the bounds of humanity.
Those
persons are truly unsure who imagine themselves sure.
Our life is
unsure, and therefore a feeling of unsureness corresponds far better
to reality than bluff and the illusion of certainty.
In the long run
the better adjusted individual triumphs, not the wrongly self-confident,
who is prone to danger without and within.
Measure not by
money or power! Peace of soul means more.
Can depth psychology assist social adaptation and increase the
capacity for human contacts?
The increased self-knowledge which depth psychology necessitates
also creates greater possibilities of communication: you can
interpret yourself in the analytical dialogue and learn through selfknowledge
to understand others.
In that way you become more just
and more tolerant.
Above all, you ca11, remedy your own mistakes,
and this is probably the best chance of making a proper adaptation
to society.
Naturally you can also make bad use of your knowledge of
yourself, just as you can of everything else you know.
Has self-knowledge a healing, liberating effect?
Repentance, confession, and purification from sin have always
been the conditions of salvation.
So far as analysis helps confession,
it can be said to bring about a kind of renewal.
Again and again
we find that patients dream of the analysis as of a refreshing and
purifying bath, or their dreams and visions present symbols of rebirth,
which show unmistakably that knowledge of their unconscious
and its meaningful integration in their psychic life give them renewed
vitality, and do indeed appear to them as a deliverance from
otherwise unavoidable disaster or from entanglement in the skeins of
fate.
How does the integration of the unconscious express itself in
the actual psychic situation?
This question can be answered only in a very general sense.
Individuality
is so varied that in each single case the integration of the
unconscious takes place in a different and unforeseen way.
One
could describe this only with the help of concrete examples.
The
human personality is incomplete so long as we take simply the ego,
the conscious, into account.
It becomes complete only when supplemented
by the unconscious.
Therefore knowledge of the unconscious
is indispensable for every true self-investigation.
Through its integration,
the center of the personality is displaced from the limited
ego into the more comprehensive self, into that center which embraces
both realms, the conscious and the unconscious, and unites
them with each other.
This self is the mid-point about which the
true personality turns.
It has therefore been since remotest times the
goal af every method of development based upon the principle of
self-knowledge, as, for example, Indian yoga proves.
From the Indian
standpoint our psychology looks like a “dialectical” yoga.
I
must remark, however, that the yogi has quite definite notions as to
the goal to be reached and does everything to attain this postulated
goal.
With us, intellectualism, rationalism, and voluntarism are such
dangerous psychic forces that psychotherapy must whenever possible
avoid setting itself any such goal.
Should this aim of attaining wholeness
and realizing his originally intended personality grow naturally
in the patient, we may sympathetically assist him toward it.
If it
does not grow of itself, it cannot be implanted without remaining a
permanent foreign body.
Therefore we renounce such artifices if
nature herself is not clearly working to this end.
As a medical art,
equipped only with human means and capabilities, our psychotherapy
does not presume to preach salvation or a way thereto, for
that does not lie in our hands. ~Jolande Jacobi, Spring 1969, Page 129-139
knowledge knowledge knowledge knowledge knowledge knowledge knowledge
