The Unconscious, the Collective Unconscious and Symbols.

 

Jung observed that the idea of the unconscious presented by Carus and von Hartman disappeared without a trace, it then re-emerged in medical psychology.[1] He noted that at first, the unconscious denoted forgotten or repressed contents of the psyche.[2]

Jung suggested that it was the study of dreams that allowed psychologists to study the unconscious aspects of conscious events, ‘As a general rule, the unconscious aspect of any event is revealed to us in dreams, where it appears not as a rational thought but as a symbolic image.’[3] Jung then noted that,

‘It is on such evidence that psychologists assume the existence of an unconscious psyche – though many scientists and philosophers deny its existence. They argue naively that such an assumption implies the existence of two “subjects,” or (to put it in a common phrase) two personalities within the same individual. But that is exactly what it does imply – quite correctly.’[4]

Sigmund Freud, despite being aware of the mythological and archaic thought forms contained in the unconscious believed that the unconscious was purely personal in nature.[5] Jung, as I mentioned earlier, believed in the existence of a deeper layer of the psyche below the personal unconscious.[6] He described this layer of the psyche as inborn, ‘This deeper layer I call the collective unconscious. I have chosen the term “collective” because this part of the psyche is not individual but universal; in contrast to the personal psyche, it has contents and modes of behaviour that are more or less the same everywhere and in all individuals.’[7] Jung called the contents of the collective unconscious archetypes, ‘… 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.’[8]

For Jung, dreams communicate in symbols, ‘As a plant produces its flower, so the psyche creates its symbols.’[9] As creative people we probably think we understand symbols, but for Jung there is always an aspect of the symbol that remains inexplicable. Jacobi suggests that, ‘The content of a symbol can never be fully expressed in rational terms.’[10]

Jung wrote that the difference between a sign and a symbol consists of the fact that, ‘A sign is always less than the concept it represents, while a symbol always stands for something more than its obvious and immediate meaning.’[11] Jung wrote that signs can be abbreviations, trademarks or insignia that simply denote the object to which they are attached.[12] Whether something is a sign or a symbol can also depend on the individual.[13] For some a white feather may be a symbol of the departed but for someone else it is simply a white feather.

For Jung, symbols are spontaneous and natural, no one has ever invented a symbol.[14] Jung also notes that there are symbolic acts, as well as symbolic feelings and thoughts and even symbolic patterns.[15] Jolande Jacobi points out that ‘… it is necessary to evaluate and interpret every symbol both collectively and individually if we wish to be sure of its actual significance in a given case.’[16]

This does mean that to interpret dreams through Jung’s process of amplification, we need to do some research into the symbols that appear in our dreams. Research into both our own personal associations and our cultural associations. Jung pointed out that, ‘There are many symbols… that are not individual but collective in their nature and origin. These are chiefly religious images… But they are in fact “collective representation,” emanating from primeval dreams and creative fantasies. As such, these images are involuntary spontaneous manifestations and by no means intentional inventions.’[17]

Joland Jacobi suggest that symbols have both conscious and unconscious aspects,

‘The German word for symbol is Sinnbild, a compound which strikingly denotes the two realms of which the symbol partakes: the Sinn, or meaning, pertains to the conscious, rational spere, the Bild, or image, belongs to the irrational spere, the unconscious. It is this twofold origin and nature which make the symbol the most faithful expression of the psychic totality…’[18]

---

[1] Carl G. Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious Second Edition, trans. R. F. C. Hull (London: Routledge, 1991), 3.

[2] Carl G. Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious Second Edition, trans. R. F. C. Hull (London: Routledge, 1991), 3.

[3] Carl G. Jung, Man and his Symbols, (London: Arkana, 1990), 23.

[4] Carl G. Jung, Man and his Symbols, (London: Arkana, 1990), 23.

[5] Carl G. Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious Second Edition, trans. R. F. C. Hull (London: Routledge, 1991), 3.

[6] Carl G. Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious Second Edition, trans. R. F. C. Hull (London: Routledge, 1991), 3.

[7] Carl G. Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious Second Edition, trans. R. F. C. Hull (London: Routledge, 1991), 3-4.

[8] Carl G. Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious Second Edition, trans. R. F. C. Hull (London: Routledge, 1991), 4-5.

[9] Carl G. Jung, Man and his Symbols, (London: Arkana, 1990), 64.

[10] Jolande Jacobi, The Psychology of C.G. Jung (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1973), 96.

[11] Carl G. Jung, Man and his Symbols, (London: Arkana, 1990), 55.

[12] Carl G. Jung, Man and his Symbols, (London: Arkana, 1990), 20.

[13] Jolande Jacobi, The Psychology of C.G. Jung (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1973), 97.

[14] Carl G. Jung, Man and his Symbols, (London: Arkana, 1990), 55.

[15] Carl G. Jung, Man and his Symbols, (London: Arkana, 1990), 55.

[16] Jolande Jacobi, The Psychology of C.G. Jung (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1973), 96.

[17] Carl G. Jung, Man and his Symbols, (London: Arkana, 1990), 55.

[18] Jolande Jacobi, The Psychology of C.G. Jung (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1973), 96-97.