What do you think of Jung? Thinking in boxes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stephen Pellegrino
Arlington, Virginia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,
What do you think of Jung's work? Having a framework of likely behaviors and responses has helped me in my "relationships" at work and home. Though most of the psychological benefit is fairly superficial right now, I think that there is a practical benefit in being able to predict other's actions (even if I do not understand why they choose that behavior, outside of an "archetype" framework.) Therefore, I am a little surprised that I do not remember you mentioning Jungian concepts at the PEI (Principles of Effective Interaction) or TER (Transforming Our Experience of Relationship) seminars (and I apologize if you did and I forgot). Regardless, could you tell me what you think?
Thank you,
Stephen


Stephen,
The issue you bring up is actually much more complex than simply addressing Jung's contribution to psychology. There is an important point here, however, and one so few people grasp that I am going to tackle it. First, you should know I don't really know Jung's work; I am barely familiar with his general theories. But the point I have to make isn't necessarily about Jung.

From time to time, some very intelligent people come up with descriptions of reality, or of human psychology, that can be revealing and useful. These are usually based on a great deal of observation and consideration. From these observations, patterns are recognized, and through the contemplation of these patterns an idea explaining them or categorizing them emerges. This idea is then tested with more observations while keeping the theory in mind. When the idea tends to fit the observations, the theory is made available to people to explain things, in this case human behavior.

If it is a good idea and well based on what is observable in people, it can be quite useful. When we learn it, we can superimpose the categories or distinctions onto reality (or others) and so we begin to see things in a way we never could before. Changing our perceptions of things will change our relationship with them. And since, in Jung's case for example, the matter is one of human psychology, we will see people and their behavior in the light of this structure and also learn to recognize facets we'd never noticed before, thus supporting the view that such a thing is very useful. But, it is only useful up to a point.

With every such pursuit, at some point people will always start to cram the truth into the framework, rather than realize that the framework is an artificial device superimposed on what's occurring. In some ways this may be inevitable, since much of our interpretation of reality is acquired through the use of models. These "models" are simply ways of explaining and categorizing what's perceived into something that makes sense to us. They help explain the world around us. But an explanation is not the truth.

In the pursuit of Cheng Hsin we use structures and develop models or theories, but our main focus is on finding the principles that make things the way that they are, and on directly experiencing the nature of what "is". When we investigate effective interaction or body-being, we consider the principles that support or determine such effectiveness. When we examine human psychology, we look into the principles that make up the human experience or "mind."

The difference between a model and a principle may sometimes be hard to discern. A principle is a constant, it is what's true or inherent within a given activity. A model is an abstraction invented to explain some observation about a given activity. The principles that actually determine people's behavior and thinking must always be true. Otherwise, they are not principles, but theories that try to explain what appears to be there.

There are many such models and ideas -- astrology, Gurdjieff's personality categories, Jung's archetypes, phrenology, etc. These may be born of considerable observation, but they are all artificial inventions that must be "applied" to reality. We can't help but use these models like templates, excluding anything that doesn't fit and filling in whatever is missing in order to validate our model of “reality.” Such interpretations not only observe what's there but also create what's there.

For example -- in a very different domain -- consider how language is not a “universal truth” but an invention. The English language is a particular tool within that invention. If we were to presume that English is language, and that language is a reflection of reality, then we would fail to notice how much we are "creating" our interpretation of things, rather than merely perceiving them. This is easily done (most everyone does) since we grow familiar with our particular world of language and take it for granted. Fromthere it is a short step to assuming, without thinking, that the English language is somehow simply the expression of universal reality. I'm sure you have seen the Sci Fi shows where all the aliens speak English. Obviously this is to make it easy on viewers, so we can get on with the drama, but it is beyond farfetched. What it fails to acknowledge in many subtle ways is the real nature of language; that it is superimposed on reality, not a reflection of reality. Language "creates" as much as it expresses. But this is another long story. Regarding Jung, his contributions might be as powerful as creating language (then again, probably not) but they are artificial and applied, not reflective or directly experienced. Such things can be very useful --where would we be without language?-- we simply need to understand what they are and what they are not.

People seem most likely to champion a given set of "archetypes" if they themselves approve of the category in which it puts them. This is true of many so called "spiritual" pursuits and views, which are especially popular if people feel approved of by them, or if their lives feel special and full of meaning when viewed through that particular cosmology. Of course, it is also to be hoped that some sense of truth helps us determine what to believe, but this is tricky in itself since a "sense of truth" may well be based on personal and cultural programming and beliefs.

I think I may have stirred up more dust than I have settled, but I trust my point is beginning to reveal itself. Some practical advice: when you find yourself trying to fit people's observed inconsistencies into the boxes, or pushing a person into a "type" even though they may not actually fit, this might be the time to give up that tool, since it has begun to displace the truth and honesty and reduce people to a model of predestined limits. When you begin to think of yourself as a "type" rather than an open human event, this is another clue that it may be doing more harm than good.
Good luck.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info