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.
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.
posted by AJV at 7:37 AM
3 Comments:
#1
I love that quote!
I think you are right but maybe a bit tame on the point. I think Jung may be a bit tame on it as well. Logical arguments are can only go so far and can only be understood if you have some of the same basic assumptions. Habit, emotion and historical/local placement mean more than logic and reason in most cases. I can understand why people want to do lots of things, logical or not, but that does not mean that I would. Nor does it mean that what holds me back is purely emotional. Logical arguments take place on a leveled playing field and follow certain rules. This field and these rules are highly refined constructions and we can step out of them at any time. We need to do something like suspending our disbelief before we can buy into and follow any logical argument, but it is not disbelief we suspend it is a part of out humanity, our soul and it is a part that modernity shuns.
I think Kuhn’s book “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” has some thing to contribute here when he talks about paradigm shifts. But that is going too far a field.
As far as kidneys… I don’t care how good the argument is. Mine are mine and they are kept for my family (and maybe a friend who is so close they are like family). I would never forgive myself if I gave one of my kidneys away and then a sister ( I have not brothers), parent, wife or child needs it. And I don’t have enough trust that if I give mine away when someone needs it some one is sure to be there if someone I love needs one. I guess you could say that my argument for my position is based on a distrust and a privileged love for my family. Does that qualify as a logical arguments in this day and age?
# 2
I think you are taking his statements against theories of self knowledge to be a little bit stronger than they are meant. There is an essay collected in “Modern Man In Search of A Soul” on personality types-- again I can’t confirm this or give you the name of the essay because I don’t have it with me. From what I remember, it talks about how personality types are good as primers, as a starting point but nothing more. I read what he says here about theories of individuality to be the same position, but maybe he had different perspectives on this at different time in his career and my assumption is wrong. In my own worlds I would say: It is useful to have a theory as a primer and maybe develop that into an intuition, but still that just makes shorter work of the initial steps of getting to know a person, including yourself. However, nothing can ever dispense with that process of getting to know a person which is not really a process but an experience that is never the same twice.
I think that he is right that the individual is never really the mean. The problem is that we treat each other like we are and in the end because we are treated that way we start to act it. This is the self that does not know itself and that has its individuality taken away from it in a very ordinary and simple way.
This is also related very closely, at least the way I see it, to his distinction between knowledge and understanding. (See my post.)
#3
I think I covered a bit on this in my post.
#4
You provided an apology and an outline for your post, only half of which was needed. I simply provided a disclaimer. :)
I am glad we are underway. This is good stuff.
I like this knowledge/understanding dynamic. Glancing ahead, three sections of the essay are devoted to it.
Three? I didn't look past sec 2. I giess I should prepare to be wrong about how I explained it in my post.
Post a Comment
<< Home