«NOMBRE DEL BECARIO San Andrés Herrera, Estefany Carolina UNIVERSIDAD Universidad de Essex Máster en Psicología Junguiana TITULO OBTENIDO La ...»
PROGRAMA DE BECAS " CONVOCATORIA ABIERTA 2012"
NOMBRE DEL BECARIO San Andrés Herrera, Estefany Carolina
UNIVERSIDAD Universidad de Essex
Máster en Psicología Junguiana
La Serpiente Arcoíris:
TEMA DE TESIS Un Llamado del Inconsciente
Registration Number: 1305165
Module Number: PA981-7-FY:
Word length: 13196
The rainbow serpent: an unconscious’ call A dissertation submitted for the degree of ‗Master in Jungian and Post Jungian Studies‘ Centre for Psychoanalytic Studies University of Essex September 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE Acknowledgements 3 Dedication 4
5 Introduction 6 PART I
- Social dimension of Jungian Studies 8
- Interdisciplinary applications and methodology 15
- Jung and Anthropology (the theory) 19
- Description of the ritual 27
- Anthropological analysis 31
- Jung and Anthropology (the practice) 39 Learnings 49 Bibliography 53
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSTo my family, for believing in me;
to my tutor and Aveiga del Pino, for their support;
to England, for the cold, the trees and the wind;
to the ‘Pharaoh’, for the conflict and the love;
and to the serpent… To the petit Florence Abstract This interdisciplinary work—based on both: theoretical Jungian approach and anthropological material— shows the significance of the social dimension and, specially, of anthropology for Jung. Moreover, it proves the possibility of applying analytical psychology to social phenomena by developing a Jungian interpretation of the Ecuadorian contemporary ritual ‘The Devils in the Holy Week‘. For this, not only correlations between archetypal images and symbolic elements in the ritual are established, but political and ethnic conflicts of the ritual practitioners are accounted.
Politics, religion and Jungian psychology come together.
IntroductionAnalytical Psychology holds an explicit and implicit social/collective dimension.
In particular, I argue that Jung‘s theoretical development was shaped by his engagement with anthropology and fieldwork studies. Both the implicit concern for the collective in Jung‘s psychology, and the implications of his cross-cultural theories, legitimate the possibility to apply Jungian ideas to understand cultural manifestations worldwide.
From that point of view, this work aims to i) show the significance of the social factor and, specially, of anthropology for Jung; and ii) prove the possibility of applying analytical psychology to social phenomena, by developing a Jungian Interpretation of the Ecuadorian contemporary ritual ‘The Devils in the Holy Week‘. Thus, going beyond any conceptual discussion, this essay seeks to contribute for the understanding of society and culture in a Latin American context and to expand the scope of Jungian psychology—in terms of subject-matter, place and methodology— to social applications further Europe and the clinical/individual consulting room. This remains as an unexplored area, which needs an interdisciplinary approach to be developed. Hence the relevance that this study takes, since it combines anthropology and Jungian studies for building an intercultural language within Analytical Psychology.
Specifically, this research is focused on the different functions that the ritual ‘The Devils in the Holy Week‘ serves: spiritual/archetypal, political/social and personal.
Within this framework, traditional and new means of understanding the concepts of ‗individuation‘, ‗projection‘ and ‗shadow‘ are taken into account. For this, I establish correlations between archetypal images and symbolic elements in the ritual but particularly accounting the political and ethnic conflicts of the ritual practitioners. This means, I look for a connection between such cultural expressions and personalcollective development processes, considering, thus, not just myth but ritual as a way of amplification of the collective unconscious.
For achieving the objectives, this analysis is divided into two main parts: i) the literature review; and ii) the case study. The first part outlines an academic justification of Jung‘s ideas for venturing in the social fields. The second part—where the Jungian application is done— gives the evidence that a practical interrelation between Analytical Psychology and Anthropology is possible. The former includes three different chapters regarding the social dimensions of Jungian psychology; applications and methodology; and the academic relationship between Jung and Anthropology1. The second part of this investigation—the case study— contains a brief description of the ritual, and of the social and historic aspects of the dwellers of Alangasí-Ecuador. Then, I develop a concise anthropological analysis, which serves as a foreground for the Jungian interpretation of the ritual. Finally, in the conclusions, I present the main learnings achieved from the analysis and open the discussion for potential interdisciplinary meetings.
It is important to mention that because of the extension of this essay only a general view of the relation between Jung and Anthropology will be presented. It is not the scope of this work to develop a critical discussion of Jung`s use and understanding of anthropological concepts. On the other hand, this analysis is not focused on religious debates and includes merely a basic anthropological analysis of the ritual.
Modern science tends to build up nearly immovable boundaries, not only between the social sciences and natural sciences, but even within the social sciences‘ realm. While it is crucial to clearly define what it means to ‗do‘ science, in particular the discipline‘s methodological boundaries, it is important also to transcend some artificial and spurious borders that have prevented greater insight into the nature of the sciences.
In particular, I am interested in the social sciences, where the ‗individual‘ automatically corresponds to psychology and ‗collective‘ is naturally linked with sociological or anthropological studies.
This division was almost invisible in the last quarter of the nineteenth-century and the beginning of the twentieth-century, when the human sciences were born. The disciplines arising at the time include anthropology, sociology and social psychology.
The scientific borders were unclear and the limited individual approach of psychology could be resolved with these new social perspectives. This fact was of utmost importance for Jung‘s theoretical development, which was shaped by his engagement with anthropology and fieldwork studies (Shamdasani, 2003).
Although Kevin Lu highlights the complexity of moving from the individual to the social dimension, especially within analytical psychology, he recognizes the intrinsic existence of a collective factor within Jungian psychology as well: ―Though Jung favours the inner life and speaks disparagingly of group psychology […], one could argue that implicit in his psychology is both a concern for collectivity and the tools necessary to carry out analyses of group life. This may not amount to an unproblematic justification for using analytical psychology to analyse culture and the body social, but it is nonetheless a justification‖ (Lu, 2013: 394-395).
Both the implicit concern for the collective in Jung‘s psychology, as well as the implications of his cross-cultural theories, provide the necessary requirements to legitimate the viability of applying Jungian ideas to understand culture and society.
There are several relevant concepts in Jungian psychology that involve social/cultural elements such us, ‗individuation‘, ‗archetypes‘, and the ‗collective unconscious‘.
Specifically, referring to the concept of individuation –a process of self-realization and the leitmotiv of analytical psychology (Stein, 2012)—Jung points out the importance of the community in the individuation process, which is opposed to ‗individualism‘. Hence Jung defines individuation as the process that ―brings to birth a consciousness of human community precisely because it makes us aware of the unconscious, which unites and is common to all mankind‖ (CW 16, par.227, emphasis added). Thus, Jung stresses the necessity of social interaction for achieving the individuation, when he writes that individuation means ―the better and more complete fulfillment of the collective qualities of the human being‖ (CW 7, par. 269), a process that ―does not shut one out from the world, but gathers the world to one‘s self‖ (CW 8, par.432).
The archetypes –one of the most significant concepts of Jungian psychology — are also defined in terms of the collective and social life. For Jung, the archetype ―tells us that so far as the collective unconscious contents are concerned we are dealing with archaic or - I would say - primordial types, that is, with universal images that have existed since the remotest times‖ (CW 1: par.4-5). The persistence of the social dimension in Jung`s work cannot be denied, due to the potential that the archetype—
defined by Rowland as ―a human commonality of psychic energies‖ (Rowland, 2010:
9)—has in terms of unifying the social and the psychological (Lu, 2013). Another social trait that emerges from the concept of archetypes is that they can only be expressed through archetypal images: the cultural form that these patterns may take.
Understanding that the source of archetypal images is the unconscious, but that these maintain a connection to the social sphere (as these images are coloured and shaped by social experience, brings us to the key point: that in Jung‘s theory, culture, history and the psychology of the unconscious are held in tension (Íbid). Although Jung may have never achieved a perfect balance, the intention was certainly there.
Papadopoulos goes one step further explaining the possibilities of applying the archetypes – defined as collectively shared ―interactional systemic structural principles‖—to therapeutic work in families and other social systems. However, he emphasizes that this concept remains in the individual level yet (Papadopuolos in Casemenet, 1998: 175). Moreover, Progoff supports the social dimension of the archetypes referring to them as a ―psychological but not (as) a psychologizing concept‖ (Progoff, 1985:282).
Another important concept that supports the application of analytical psychology to collective processes is the collective unconscious. For Jung, it represents a deeper psychic layer that ―does not derive from personal experience and is not a personal acquisition but is inborn [...] this part of the unconscious is not individual but universal […] It is, in other words, identical in all men and thus constitutes a common psychic substrate of a suprapersonal nature which is present in everyone of us (CW 9I: par.3-4, emphasis added). Merely the name of this concept by itself evokes the emphasis that Jung gives to the collective, beyond individual experience. In this respect, Jung‘s first link with the social dimension is the collective nature of humankind (universal patterns/ archetypes) and not the human being as a lonely individual by himself. The unifying characteristic of this concept expresses the shared humanity of all and thus enables the complex union of individual and collective. Precisely because all human beings shared these same psychic contents, analytical psychology could be useful to analyze any individual or social group regardless of time, culture and space. Thence, the boundaries between individual and collective are diluted because according to the collective unconscious, we are all interconnected in the psychic realm.
Additionally, Jung‘s emphasis on both the human being as an individual and the human being as a social animal speaks to the link between individuals and groups. In opposition to other psychologists, who consider society as a sum of individuals, Jung believed that the ―collective manifests the inherent social quality of human nature‖ (Progoff, 1985:160). Following Jungian ideas, Progoff expresses that: ―Man is by his very nature social […] The human psyche cannot function without a culture, and no individual is possible without society‖ (ibid). Thus, there is a relation that begins in the society that extends to the individual and, therefore, the development of individuality is at the same time a development of society (Jung, 1916).
Furthermore, Progoff explains that Jung is interested in what is called the inner content of history (Progoff, 1985: 160). Hence, Jung developed a ―historical dimension of psychological depth‖ (íbid: xiii) taking into account both the historical background of the personality and the universal dimension of the unconscious. In doing so, Progoff
suggests, Jung spoke to the the ―historical background of the psyche in general‖ (íbid:
Jung`s interest and concern for the cultural and social dimension of humanity is also manifested in his understanding of mythology. For him, a myth is a product of both conscious and unconscious, individual and collective (Walker, 2005). Therefore, myth is one of the vehicles through which the unconscious is manifested. The similarity and consistency of mythic motifs worldwide was the evidence Jung used to support his formulation of both the psychic meta-language of the collective unconscious and the archetypes (Jung, 1975). As Lu mentions, archetypes, and by extension mythological motifs, ―represent universal perceptions, situations and needs, they offer the possibility of a ‗shared world of meanings‘‖ (Lu, 2013: 394-395). Moreover, in developing an interpretation of any given myth necessitates a consideration of both the individual and collective levels of experience. Both the collective unconscious and the archetypal image play an equally significant role; one cannot ignore context and the expense of the
personal dimension, and vice versa. As Jung states, ―the individual images in a myth:
they need a context […]‖ (Jung, 1941: 189).
This particular socio-psychological view of mythology was crucial for Jung‘s interdisciplinary approach, which was influenced by both psychology and anthropology.