Section 2 and Thesedays

Section 2

This section lays the groundwork for how religion and God can help the individual attain self knowledge avoid becoming simply one of the masses. This is interesting for me because religion, which today is thought of as creating generic people, is seen as the antidote to mass mindedness. However, Jung’s idea of both religion and God are different from the common western take on it. Both are relational and very personal for him. That is why religion is a force for individuality in Jung’s system. What we think of as religion Jung calls creed (and what we think of as creed should be called something like: confession of [shared] faith).

Anyway, lots could be said here… actually was. But it failed in its aims and was untimely (and unruly). So this will do for now. I think things will come more clear in the nest couple of sections. See you on Saturday.

Religion as the Counterbalance to Massmindedness

The gem of this section is Jung’s distinction between religion and creed. The former is an intensely subjective relationship to God or salvation or liberation—“extramundane factors.” In contrast, creed involves an institution or community (a mass of people) and is of this world. State governments and religious organizations subsume the authority of religion (proper) to promote allegiance and support for themselves. Hence, the state will draw upon the magic of ceremony, pomp, mystery, pageantry, processions, etc. to increase its power.

All this seems apparent, especially in light of the Fascist propaganda machines of the twentieth century. Think of the monumental portrait art of state leaders, like Chairman Mao. What I like the most here bears resemblance to a piece of the first section. Jung writes: “…a natural function which has existed from the beginning, like the religious function, cannot be disposed of with rationalistic and so-called enlightened criticism.”

I wrote about this in my first post. To combat the state’s use of creed, it is not enough to point out contradictions and irrationalities. One would need a whole system to win the confidence of the masses. But then this would be just another dogma for the people to swallow without chewing.

Zo, is this the only answer?

The Plight of the Individual in Modern Society--First Thoughts

Jung definitely did not intend this work to be comical, but I smiled a few times while reading this essay. For example, Jung says, “…The gift of reason and critical reflection is not one of man’s outstanding peculiarities.” Maybe it’s not funny so much as clever and accurate. Maybe I smiled because I’m an elitist ass. Anyway, on with the substantive…

Since I didn’t economize my writing, here’s an outline:

1. I wax on arguments and agree with Jung that reason is not enough.
2. I naively disagree with Jung’s dismissal of theories of self-knowledge.
3. I try to make up for my rambling, by giving a succinct summary of the central gist of this first section.

1. “Radical argument can be conducted with some prospect of success only so long as the emotionality of a given situation does not exceed a certain critical degree.” Oddly enough, I’ve never found this sentiment in writing before. It’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while. Rational argument in most cases is never enough to convince someone an argument is right. But we all know this. The interesting cases appear when someone is willing to concede an argument, agree with its principles and conclusions, and still not adopt the argument as a personal belief. I did this a few months ago. I had the good fortune of meeting a doctoral student at Princeton over dinner with a friend of mine. She expressed frustration over the undergraduates in a seminar conducted by Peter Singer. She said that the students all agreed with Singer’s arguments for vegetarianism, but were unwilling to convert (until they saw the slaughterhouse videos—but even then I’d bet there were only a few who became real, lasting vegetarians). The only explanation I can give for the behavior of the students is that they acknowledged an argument without adopting a belief. Soon, the Princetonian had me doing the same thing. She asked me if I’d be willing to donate one of my kidneys. Apparently (and I haven’t checked the facts), kidney removal is an easy surgery that is covered by most insurance plans. For the sake of argument, let’s assume this is true. Let’s say it can be done in an outpatient clinic in under an hour and recovery time is minimal. Her reasoning was that there are enough kidneys in the world that no one should die of kidney failure (similar to Sack’s argument against world hunger). Since the operation is so easy and my body only needs one kidney, wouldn’t it make sense for me to give up a kidney? Well sure, I guess. I conceded that if what she said were true, it would be the right thing to do. At the same time, I told her if she wanted people to donate their kidneys, she would need to add more to her argument than reason. What would be required of me to donate my kidney? If one of my family members needed it, I wouldn’t think twice. A good friend—no problem. But an unknown… That would require a lot of courage. Am I morally culpable of being selfish, since I don’t want to part with one of my organs? People donate blood, why not a kidney? There are so many psychological and emotional barriers there. OK, I’ve wasted enough time.

2. In this first section, Jung deemphasizes theories of self-knowledge: “Since self-knowledge is a matter of getting to know the individual facts, theories are of little help.” He’s moving away from generalized conceptions of individuality, particularly of statistical models, because he believes these are wholly inaccurate and misleading. Individuals are never the mean (the average). Individuals are fundamentally irregular (outliers). The bell curve is erroneous. Think here of that oft-quoted American family ideal, 2.5 children. Allegedly, American households boast a mean of 2.5 children. What does a 0.5 child look like? (I have a few ideas: all inappropriate.) This is not the best example to illustrate Jung’s point, but it’s easy to see how statistics can distort reality.

But I don’t like this tenet against theories of individuals. In my margin notes, I wrote: “What does this mean for psychoanalysis?” Luckily, Jung answers this question, calling the tension between psychoanalytic theory and achieving an “understanding [of an] individual” the central “contradiction” of his practice. On some levels, I understand what he’s arguing. But it’s a bit too radical for my taste, being a huge fan of balance. Let’s go with an example from the world of teaching. Take the teacher who’s been working for 40 years, who’s taught hundreds, possibly thousands of students. These teachers come to understand students much faster than an unseasoned teacher like myself. To some extent their intuition might be better than others; however, I think it’s safe to say that they have seen and taught so many students that they are familiar with most of the different types of student-individuals. (I’m not going to say: “They’ve seen them all.”) And I think this is true of most professions that involve bits of psychology. Are the teachers using a theory of individuals? I think so. But any good teacher would not pigeonhole the student she recognizes, because as teachers we value the importance of individuality. But the theory makes for an excellent and often accurate primer.

Zophorian, I’d be curious to hear what you have to say about this.

3. I think the main gist of this section is against state governments who use statistics for policy and, consequently, dehumanize its citizens. As I mentioned below, Jung is writing in the wake of the mass movements of the 30s and 40s. I can understand his concerns. Jung also places a critique of individuals here, as being generally unwilling to pursue self-knowledge and go with the flow of the masses. As the “Dog Whisperer” on Opera said: “Dogs are like people. Very few want to be the alpha male.”

4. Zophy's entry is much more sensible and sensical than mine. I'll make up for it in a reply.

Section 1... off we go!

I THINK IT will be evident that AJ and I have different approaches and styles when it comes to thinking and writing about texts. I expect his posts to be much more organized and focused than mine. I am much more prone to rambling, leaps, and tangents. I hope that you bear with me and find something interesting. My ‘style’ is not just sloppiness, it is a very conscious decision—though it may be misdirected I stand by it. The hope is that the gaps and flights will leave room for further discussion.

THE FIRST thing that I want to point out is Jung’s fascination with Nietzsche. There are two whole volumes of lectures that Jung did on Nietzsche (Amazon). I have not read them yet because I hope to get all of Nietzsche’s Will-To-Power and a few hundred more pages of Jung under my belt before I do. (And they are a bit spendy.) Though I can often see places in Jung’s ideas that hint at Nietzschean influence. I often like to think that Jung and Heidegger (who’s works are very heavily influenced by Nietzsche) would have had a lot of productive things to say to each other if they would have had a chance to meet—and if Heidegger’s awkward involvement with National Socialism had not taken place. In any case, I think Jung is just as radical as Nietzsche is. Jung’s idea of what the human being is and can become are pretty different from what we commonly think. As a result I am going to be reading Jung in a way that emphasizes those differences.

JUNG’S ESSAY on synchronicity points out in more detail what he thinks of statistical truth—i.e. science. One of the many things that he points out so powerfully in that essay is that things in ‘real life’ happen much more often than they are supposed to statistically. Oddities and strange occurrences are in fact more common than we are lead to believe by the statistical worldview. He cites evidence that Astrology is far more accurate than it ought to be according to statistics; though it is not necessary something that you can rely on. He cites other data and experiments that support his case for a-causal relationship that defy laws of physics and challenge the idea that everything is explainable through cause and effect in the physical world.

Synchronicity is meaningful coincidence, but it is coincidence in the sense that it is not causal and therefore not physical. What I am getting at here is that in other places—like this essay and his introduction to the first German translation of the I Ching— he more fully supports his claim that our scientific understanding of the world misses a lot of significant realities. In “The Undiscovered Self” he is trying to free the individual from scientific and statistical generalization. In other works he tries to free the physical world and the world of experience. I deeper and more radical reading of this book with regard to this issue (which I will be doing) is supported by these other works and is not just a product of my imagination.

RELATED TO THIS is the distinction that Jung makes between understanding and knowledge. I think this distinction is a sort of grounding for a lot of what is said in this section.
Knowledge is the scientific (and often academic) way of dealing with things. Knowledge tires to be objective, it is factual, broad reaching, aims to be universally applicable and very reliable. It is based on material facts and a commitment to establishing a certain and stable body of knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge dissects, abstracts, categorizes and classifies. Knowledge aims more at a domination of its subject and less on a relationship to it.

Understanding is (as I see it) an older and more everyday way of dealing with things. It is deep, relational, and provisional. Understanding is based on experience and a commitment to its subject. The pursuit of understanding digs deeply into the subject and its world. It enters into a commitment of concern (or care) with the subject. Understanding aims more to work with its subject in a collaborative relationship and is not as interested in dominating its subject.

THOUGH AJ WILL likely disagree with me (and as I read on in the next section I think he is closer to the text), I think that Jung’s concern is not limited to the European politics of the 40s and 50s that lead to WWII and Stalinism in the USSR. I think that he was also concerned with what was happening to the individual in America with the dawn of that we now call mass culture and mass media—and even globalization and westernization. Even if he was not concerned with this (and it is possible and understandable that he did not see it coming) I think this first section gives us a good foundation from which to look at and analyze the decline of the individual and world diversity in the face of mass culture, mass media and westernization. In terms of a critique of our materialistic and alienated culture this may serves as a better foundation than Marx. (But then again I never liked Marxist critique much anyway, though I do have a great respect and admiration for Marx’s writings themselves.)

In a sense I think that the abstract state and culture that he talks about turns into a weak (or even backdoor) totalitarianism. What I mean is that it is not leasers and a vocal and forceful minority (or even majority) that takes control in an obvious way to dominate and change society but ideologies that are uncritically subscribed to that dominate society by dominating the way that people think and act. This is a way of controlling the masses not by force but by persuading and leading people who are not critical of the ideologies that direct their lives. (I may return to this later in light of what he has to say about creeds, which is akin to the sort of ideology I am thinking of here.)

Mass media and mass culture (consumerism really) lead us to act in ways that undermine our individuality and liberty by pacifying us with ‘information’ and material goods. In this sense corporations and economics are what we need to be concerned about today and not the state and culture—after all I think that culture in the US is dominated by economics and politics are primarily concerned with economic growth. (And of course we turn to the corporations for advice, leadership and results when it comes to economic growth.) This is just a hint at how I think this text can be interpreted as relevant to us now, and not just as a treatise against European politics of the last century.

I THINK JUNG makes a wonderful point when he talks about the two roles that the therapist has to play: that of trying to understand the patient and help them and that of being the doctor who is caught up in scientific knowledge. I have seen firsthand how therapists can dominate their patients with theories to the detriment of their individuality. I think this is often made worse by the fact that we see medication as a magical cure all for problems like depression and anxiety. What happens is that the therapist does not deal deeply with the individual but merely modifies the habits and brain chemistry of the patient in order to make them a productive and content member of society. I think every therapist should be made to read and meditate on this passage in Jung regularly.

The Undiscovered Self by C. G. Jung & Our Reading Schedule

Zophorian and I are currently reading The Undiscovered Self by Jung. As one of the last pieces he wrote, this sizeable essay employs many of his concepts to critique the relationship between the individual and mass society. Though I've read only the first section, I can see that the work is haunted by the mass politics of the 30s and 40s--particularly those movements like Nazi eugenics that sought to empower and ennoble certain peoples (blonde-types) through scientific means. I wonder at this point if we can call Jung a radical humanist or radical subjectivist and how he will resolve this tension between science and individual agency. Perhaps his gripe is just with the State's use of science though. We shall see.

Zophy and I plan to read two sections every week, posting on Wednesdays or Saturdays. Thus, I'll post this Sat (6/24) on section 1 and Wed (6/28) on section 2. The rest is as follows:

section 3 = 7/1
section 4 = 7/5
section 5 = 7/8
section 6 = 7/12
section 7 = 7/15

Introduction

Inaugural Post & Introduction

This blog was started by two Columbia University graduates. (And anyone who has read the texts we are reading, or wants to read along with us, is invited to comment and contribute.) One has his BA and MA from Columbia. The other merely has his MA from the Ivy League. Both of our MAs are in Modern European Studies—which means that everything European from the past 200 years or so is in our purview. My emphasis was on philosophy and literature. My BA is from a small college in Minnesota where I studied philosophy, theology and political science. I also spent a short time pursuing a graduate degree in Christian Spirituality. My partner in this endeavor studied philosophy and literature as well. Both of us share a love of literature and a strong affinity for the writings of Nietzsche.

The name of the blog is taken from Nietzsche who advocates an approach to reading and studying that is slow and thoughtful. Nietzsche calls this approach rumination in the preface to his Genealogy of Morality (and elsewhere). He says, "...to practice reading as an art...one thing above all is necessary... something for which one must almost be a cow and in any case not a 'modern man': ruminating." We like this and are therefore willing to call ourselves cows.

Please join us as we slowly and thoughtfully chew.