Symbolism in the Bible and the Church
Archetypes, in Jung’s thought, are analagous to instincts a “given disposition to behave in a certain way in particular circumstances : they can also be thought of (as Jung suggests) as the abstract ‘lattice-structure’ of crystals, i.e. the pre-determined pattern which is common to all the possible varieties of the actual concrete crystals of any particular crystalline substance.
Archetypes bear a similar relationship to the symbols which are their manifestation, and from which their existence is inferred.
A symbol is not deliberately thought out like an allegory : a consciously contrived device designed to ‘symbolize something is better called a sign or an emblem.
A genuine symbol cannot be completely rationalized ; because of its very nature its roots are in the unconscious: in fact, the extent to which a symbol is capable of being rationalized seems to be inversely proportional to its subsequent effectiveness in awakening a response in many people this raises the whole problem of the use of ancient symbols in modern worship, a topic to which we shall return. As we have seen above, the Fish, in an early Christian context, is a remarkable symbol which represents simultaneously many different levels of existence and experience past, present and future; historical and metaphysical; religious and seasonal; eucharistic and post-mortal.
For a variety of reasons, in our contemporary culture the Fish is no longer a symbol of this sort: in some areas of our society the Fish might be taken to mean Trying Tonight’ !
In his book The Origins and History of Consciousness Erich Neumann discusses the function of symbols as ‘stepping-stones’ in the historical development of human thought-processes:
‘Generally speaking the symbol works in opposite ways for primitive and modern man. Historically, the symbol led to the development of consciousness, to reality-adaptation and the discovery of the objective world. It is now known, for instance, that sacred animals came “before” stockbreeding, just as in general the sacred meaning of a thing is older than its profane meaning. Its objective significance is only perceived afterwards, behind its symbolic significance.
In the dawn period the rationalizable component of a symbol was of crucial importance, since it was at this point that man’s view of the world passed from the symbolic to the rational.
The Psychological Types advance from prelogical to logical thinking likewise proceeds via the symbol, and it can be shown that philosophic and scientific thinking gradually developed out of symbolic thinking by progressively emancipating itself from the emotional-dynamic components of the unconscious’.
Symbols are also very important Energy-transformers’ linking the unconscious and the conscious : by means of them we are able to orientate our attention and focus our abilities in both customary and new directions.
By means of religious and national symbols a peaceable carpenter can, in time of war, be persuaded to accept training which will convert him into an efficient destroyer of his fellow men the appeal to reason is only a part (often a small part) in the achievement of this kind of metamorphosis.
As Erich Neumann write :
ln early cultures, everyday habit is simply the unconscious existence of primitive man, the habitual clinging of his libido to the world in participation mystique, in which state his natural life is spent.
Through the symbol, the energy is freed from this attachment and becomes available for conscious activity and work.
The symbol is the transformer of energy, converting into other forms the libido which alone enables primitive man to achieve anything at all.
That is why any activity of his has to be initiated and accompanied by a variety of religious and symbolic measures, whether it be farming, hunting, fishing or any other “unaccustomed” work not done every day.
Only with the help of the fascinating, libido-catching, and ego-absorbing effect of the symbol can the “unaccustomed activity” be undertaken.’
Many different objects can become symbols of the same archetypal figure. Motherhood, for instance, suggests such processes as sheltering, enclosing, containing, preserving, nourishing, supporting, etc., so that typically feminine symbols include valleys, walled gardens, wells and springs, vessels and ships, caves and rock-clefts, houses and cities, cradles and coffins, trees, fruits and certain flowers.
In the Church many of these symbols are associated with the Blessed Virgin Mary (derived mainly from the Song of Songs), and the Church itself (often with boat-shaped buildings) is thought of as our Mother and the Bride of Christ.
Conversely, the same symbol can refer to opposite poles of experience:
thus, the snake symbolizes both death and resurrection, disease and healing, Satan and Christ.
Further, as distinct from symbols which have the same kind of significance for everybody (because of their connection with the archetypes of the unconscious), we all tend to acquire a number of personal symbols and what is almost a private mythology: some objects have a symbolic significance for us individually because they are associated with experiences which have made impressions in the personal unconscious.
Hence the difficulty of interpreting dreams, i.e. of knowing whether a particular dream-symbol belongs to the collective or to the personal unconscious.
Archetypes, as the choice ofname implies, are also analogous, in a way, to what Plato called ‘forms’ or ‘ideas’; but whereas the Platonic ‘form’ is, as it were, a divine archetype wholly light and eternal, the Jungian archetype is a temporal human form’ having a ‘dark side* as well as a light side. (In his Answer to Job Jung goes so far as to write of the ‘shadow side’ of God’s consciousness as it is revealed in his dealings with Satan and Job.)
The principal archetypal matrices are connected with the primordial, universal and inescapable experiences of mankind birth and death, mother and father, day and night, light and dark, summer and winter, drought and water, eating and mating, adolescence and senescence, danger and escape.
Such archetypes of the collective unconscious ‘crystallize* in many different myths and symbols, they are enacted in a variety of rituals, and they arise in a multitude of images in dreams and visions.
In The Psychology of C. G. Jung Jolande Jacobi writes:
‘The number of archetypes is relatively limited, for it corresponds to the “possibilities of typical fundamental experiences”, such as human beings have had since the beginning of time.
Their significance for us lies precisely in that “primal experience” which they represent and mediate.
The themes of the archetypal images are the same in all cultures, corresponding to the phylogenetically determined portion of the human constitution.
We find them repeated in all mythologies, fairy tales, religious traditions and mysteries. What else is the myth of the night sea-voyage, of the wandering hero, or of the sea-monster than our timeless knowledge, transformed into a picture, of the sun’s setting and rebirth?
Prometheus, the stealer of fire, Hercules, the slayer of dragons, the numerous myths of creation, the fall from Paradise, the sacrificial mysteries, the virgin birth, the treacherous betrayal of the hero, the dismembering of Osiris, and many other myths and tales portray psychic processes in symbolic-imaginary form.
Likewise the forms of the snake, the fish, the sphinx, the helpful animals, the World Tree, the Great Mother, and no otherwise the enchanted prince, the puer aeternus, the Mage, the Wise Man, Paradise, etc., stand for certain figures and contents of the collective unconscious.
In every single individual psyche they can awaken to new life, exercise their magic power and become condensed to a kind of “individual mythology” that forms an impressive parallel to the great mythologies handed down from all peoples and times, and helps to render their source, essence, and meaning concrete, so to speak, displaying them in a clearer light.’
The theory of archetypes is, of course, not just a theory’ it is the basis of practical treatment for the mentally ill. There are, as it were, centres of mental energy which seem to be associated with the archetypal patterns and which operate in a way analogous to the behaviour of physical organs : if we disregard the ‘rules’ which govern the digestion of food we are liable to suffer from flatulence, ulceration, constipation, diarrhea or some other alimentary condition:
it would appear that there are certain analogous mental conditions which arise as though ‘laws’ governing the activity of archetypes had been ‘broken’, and conversely, when these ‘laws’ are understood and observed the result is likely to be mental good health.
To continue the above quotation:
‘The sum of the archetypes signifies thus for Jung the sum of all the latent potentialities of the human psyche an enormous, inexhaustible store of ancient knowledge concerning the most profound relations between God, man and the cosmos.
To open this store to one’s own psyche, to wake it to new life and to integrate it with consciousness, means therefore nothing less than to take the individual out of his isolation and to incorporate him in the eternal cosmic process.
It is in this spirit that the remainder of this book is written: it is an attempt to apply some of these ideas to the study of the Scriptures and of Christian worship in the hope that we may be helped to find a way out of the present impasse in religion. ~Gilbert Cope, Symbolism in the Bible and the Church, Page84 -88
Carl Jung Depth Psychology Blog
