Karl Jung's Theoretical Concepts - Essay Example

JUNG Introduction The current research report investigates an analysis and interpretation of the important psychological figure Karl Jung. Jung, a disciple of Freud, broke with Freud midway through his career to forge a new and unique perspective on psychoanalysis and cognitive processes. The current investigation examines some of the main theoretical concepts of Jung, such as personality theory, actualization, individuation, projection, and, perhaps his most famous contribution, archetypes. The report also looks at similarities and differences between Jungian, Freudian, and Adlerian theories, as well as examining the primary practical applications of Jung’s theories today, before concluding. Jung was very influential and changed the way many people thought of psychology in his time, adding a certain mystical or spiritual dimension to some of Freud’s basic categories. And, like Freud, Jung has remained a respected part of the field of psychology, even in today’s modern world. Theoretical concepts According to Jung’s theories, life’s primary goal is to achieve self-realization, or a harmonious blending of the many components and forces within the psyche. “Although self-realization is never completely achieved, approximating it involves a… journey of self-discovery” (Hergenhahn and Olson, 2003). The analyst’s role, then, in this situation is to help the client through a sectional modality to find as much self-discovery and self-realization as possible within the parameters of the interview setting, or to present this modality in terms of analysis. The individuation process is a Jungian theory that calls for the individual to confront parts of their archetypes such as the shadow and thus become a more whole person. Individuation is described by Jung as being a process, one in which the individual is separated from being a compilation of influences and becomes a whole or true person. Unity is essential to the process, which was seen by Jung to be natural as people got older and also applicable in nature. Individuation can occur consciously or unconsciously. Although Jung believed in the collective unconscious, he also believed in individual uniqueness and related the two concepts synchronously through the process of individuation, in which the person has an often-mystical experience of connection with the collective unconscious and thus personally realizes their wholeness. The conscious and the unconscious are seen to be linked at this point, the unconscious being collective and the conscious being personal. In Jungian terms, “The source of transference and countertransference is projection, the process in which characteristics of one person are reacted to as if they belong to another object or person” (Scharf, 2004). The individuation process was also seen by Jung to be potentially induced by trying to make a connection in the individual between their conscious and unconscious self/selves, through analysis and deliberate action. Jung favored this form of coaxing out the individuation process in an analytical setting. Obviously, the individuation process does not occur during early childhood, and is seen by most to have its roots in the second half of an individual’s adult life. “Perhaps Jung’s most original contribution is that of the collective unconscious and archetypal patterns and images that arise from it” (Scharf, 2004). Jung was also somewhat strict about the individuation process being facilitated only by his own methods and descriptions, and was distrustful of other methods such as yoga or other eastern paradigms of awareness and enlightenment as being legitimate. The goal of the individuation process is seen to be wholeness and a feeling of personal well-being that is facilitated by the individual’s triumph over archetypes. But, “Using the Gestalt technique of talking to an imagined person in an empty chair may be another way of accessing unconscious material” (Scharf, 2004). In other words, many modalities share the same goal. Perhaps the most famous of Jung’s theories is that of the archetypes. Archetypes are generalized psychological categories which refer to a universal principle. They are different from the types such as introvert, extrovert, etc. in that they are much more abstract and theoretical in nature. Archetypes are considered also to be more functional in nature and they are seen to connect individuals in the present as much as they are seen to explain ancient Greek myths. As pattern-based paradigms, archetypes function as a way of explaining broad and generalized tendencies or functionalist patterns in individuals. One example of an archetype is the persona. This is considered to be the individual’s self-presentation in synch with or in opposition to an external environment. It is more like a role that is played than a true or core self. For example, an individual might say “I am a student” and/or “I am a mother,” and be exhibiting one or more personas. Another example of the archetype is the shadow, which is seen to be a compilation of beliefs, tendencies, or behaviors which the individual for one reason or another has discarded. The semantic connotations of the shadow are somewhat suspect, but it is a recognized archetype. For example, someone who wanted to be an artist but was forced to be an accountant may have a creative and talented shadow that they may feel compelled to rediscover or repress. In Jungian theory, the anima and animus are also considered together to be an archetype. This is a gendered distinction. The anima is the female image of the male, and the animus is the male image of the female. This archetype can be seen also to be a connecting point between conscious and unconscious mental processes. Comparison with Freud and Adler Although he was an early student of Freudian theory, Jung was more spiritual in his pursuit of meaning than Freud, who detested religion and saw it as a great and unproven illusion, was. Although Freud and Jung differed in some respects, then, in their respective advocacy of psychoanalysis and analytical psychology, namely in their relative lack and surfeit of spiritual awareness (Jung’s collective unconscious), their disagreements over the dynamics of the individual psyche, and the actual constitution of this psyche (Jung was less likely to use over-sexualized explanations), both thinkers saw psychological problems as things that were much like pirate treasure, to be unearthed provided with crude maps from the unconscious of individuals. “In 1914 Jung broke with Freud to develop his own school of psychology, which emphasized the interpretation of the psyches symbols from a universal mythological perspective rather than a personal biographical one” (Bridle, 2009). Analytical psychology differs from Freudian psychoanalysis in several ways, and is most often attributed to the split which occurred between Freud and Jung. Psychoanalytic definitions almost always refer to Freud or Freudian spin-offs, which often disagree with many of Freud’s essential theories but remain steadfast in their assumption that the unconscious is the place to look for meaning, which is often obscured and hidden and must be ferreted out somehow. The id is the basic and first formation in Freud’s theory, and it controls the appetites and basic needs of the human. For example, the id wants food, and the child makes noises. The id is an elemental construction that works on a basic level and is concerned primarily with looking out for the human. “Thus, as Freud saw it, while the rest of our desires were ‘growing up,’ those that were repressed—and thereby prevented from being integrated with the rest of the personality—remained active in their original primitive form” (Lutz, 2001). The ego is seen to develop as we get older and interact with others around us. This is seen as the next personality component, which recognizes reality more than the id in that the ego is capable of empathy and sympathy for other individuals. The ego is basically the seeds of ethical impulse and the recognition that our actions may be capable of causing us or others pain because of our selfishness. At the same time, the ego is seen to be subservient to the id, but is also more powerful in healthy people who can appreciate reality. “Freud elaborated a network of theories about the many currents and crosscurrents below the surface of the human personality—the conscious and unconscious; the ego, id and superego; the libidinal and aggressive drives… that have become inextricably interwoven in the fabric of modern thought” (Bridle, 2009). Jung believed in and followed many of these concepts. Like Jung, Adler focused on categorizing the human mind. Unlike Jung, he was more methodical about this categorization, and less spiritual. The four major lifestyles are put forth as described by Adler, who focused on such categorizations as a way of providing a general framework by which individuals could be measured in terms of commonality. One could argue that Jung and Freud, on the other hand, measured uniqueness rather than commonality. There are arguably more lifestyles than can be easily dissected and categorized, but the four major lifestyles are an attempt to provide a sort of general framework to the ways in which individuals behave and have different styles of life. The first lifestyle demonstrated by Adler is the ruling type, which by and large demonstrates a great deal of activity and awareness without a whole lot of social contact with fellow individuals. This lifestyle is very aware of what will benefit the individual’s own situation, and is not averse to aligning itself with external factors to make goals come to fruition. Personal goals are very important to those with ruling type lifestyles, and will be pursued vigorously, sometimes at the expense of others. The getting type is the converse of the ruling type: this lifestyle type emphasizes social contact and is not as energetic and aggressive in pursuing personal goals at all costs. The getting types are generally more personable than the ruling types, although they may get less accomplished. They are considered to be very common. The avoiding type has low energy levels along with a stunted sense of sociality. This type has problems because they are lazy, but at the same time are incensed that anyone thinks they’re lazy. This lifestyle category is frowned upon by Adler. The final lifestyle type is the socially useful type. This lifestyle categorization shows the individual to be interested in being social and also have a high level of energy. They may pursue individual goals in a more empathetic and sensitive way than ruling type lifestyles. “Adler’s most significant divergence from Freuds premises was his belief that it was crucial to view the human being as a whole—not as a conglomeration of mechanisms, drives or dynamic parts. And in contrast to most psychological thinking of the time, Adler believed that, fundamentally, human beings are self-determined” (Bridle, 2009). Jung, however, saw a more external motivation. Contemporary application If Freud, Jung, and Adler were each transported in a time-machine to the present and each given a sanitarium to operate, all of them would accept patients and work with them intensively to categorize their behavior, and unearth the unconscious motivations for their problems. Meanwhile, perhaps across the street or across town, facilities using the pharmacological approach would be treating and releasing patients with a comparative frequency that could conservatively be called exponential. It is perhaps better, then, that these figures are constrained to a past from which we can dissect their differences and similarities. However, this is not to say that Jung especially does not retain contemporary value. Archetypes are still widely studied, for example, “group of memories and interpretations associated with an archetype is a complex, e.g. a mother complex associated with the mother archetype. Jung treated the archetypes as psychological organs, analogous to physical ones in that both are morphological constructs that arose through evolution” (Jungian, 2009). Despite the relatively popular idea of the cognitive window at present, behavioral theories can also be applied to a paradigm of developmental norms in assessing disordered behavior. This shows that developmental states can also be as malleable as social and cultural indicators, however: although many support the cognitive window theory, others, especially those that focus more on psychomotor reactions and physiological cues, see a gradual acceleration that occurs over time and does not have a great deal of concentration in the early childhood years. Jung’s stage based theories are still used today, but arguably have been overshadowed by those of Erikson. Perhaps science is working towards a developmental norm that is stable; in any case, the idea of using developmental norms to assess disordered behavior seems to be a more stable method inherently than using social norms. However, this does not mean that developmental norms are inherently stable definitional paradigms, not subject to change over time with the shift of paradigms and theoretical approaches as much as social norms shift over time as well. Within these shifts and changes in paradigm, Jung has remained influential, particularly because of the spiritual and metaphysical tendencies of his theories, and their very general base. Of course, like Freud, his original words are dated in terms of the time and culture which produced them; nonetheless, they are still widely read and studied today. Conclusion In summary, this investigation has looked at Jung’s theories, has compared and contrasted Freud, Jung, and Adler, and has noted the relevancy of Jung in the present day. In my personal opinion, I tend to prefer Jung to Freud and Adler, because on a surface level, he seems to be saying that not everything can be known and determined. In other words, I see in his tendency towards metaphysics and spiritualism, a sort of note about the external locus of control. This is something I do not find as much in Freud or Adler, who tend to have more scientific or rational perspectives, which seem to deny an external locus of control. Although I do not agree with all of Jung’s theories, I do appreciate how they still have resonance today, particularly among those who still view psychology as being primarily based on talking to, rather than simply medicating, clients. REFERENCE Bridle, S (2009). Freud, Adler, Jung: Theories of the self and ego. http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j17/wasist.asp Hergenhahn, B.R., and M.H. Olson (2003). An Introduction to Theories of Personality. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lutz, C.A. (1998). Personality and Emotions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Scharf, Richard S. (2004). Theories of Psychotherapy and Counseling. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Thompson. Jungian analytical psychology (2009). http://www.trans4mind.com/mind-development/jung.html Read More