The Anima: a post-Jungian perspective
The Jungian concept of the anima and animus is one of Jung’s most engaging and potent contributions to psychoanalysis. Of all the articles we have published on this site the posts on the anima and animus consistently get the most views and rank highest on Google’s search engines. It is one of those ideas that has come to be definitive of Jungian psychology.
Simultaneously, of all the concepts we have taught at the Centre none has proved more difficult than the anima and animus!
From my reading on this idea in contemporary Jungian literature and hearing several prominent Jungian scholars speak on the topic, this problem is conceptual and widespread. My friend and mentor Andrew Samuels once said to me that when he first encountered Jungian psychology, he considered the anima and animus to be the crown jewels. The emphasis being on the past tense of that consideration because he clearly had cause to reconsider such view over time.
Part of the difficulty is simply the complexity and subtlety of the idea. It is not the easiest idea to get a hold of and like many ideas in psychoanalysis it has a phenomenological character. It requires more than mere intellectual understanding. This is not to diminish the thinking function or to dismiss the need for clear rational articulation. Rather, as anyone who has spent enough time reflecting on and trying to get a hold of such an idea realises, it is more than an abstraction. It is an experience, and language is limited in its descriptive power to convey such experience.
This difficulty, the need for experience and not just rationalisation, is however, as mentioned, a ubiquitous one in the field of depth psychology.[1] The added and particular complexity with the concept of the anima and animus is its prima facie sexism. It seemingly assumes and is built on an essentialist Platonic ontology where reality is governed by eternal archetypes. This essentialism extends in Jung’s model of the psyche to gender and he characterises the unconscious psyches of men and woman as distinct.
The anima of Jung’s theory, the feminine subpersonality of a male person and then animus, the masculine subpersonality of a female person, are biologically driven natural evolutions of contra sexuality.”[2]
The additional and perhaps more challenging aspects of this essentialism is the apparent sexism and chauvinist bias in the characterisation of these two archetypes anima and animus by Jung.
This issue led to the following exchange with a female student on a group process I am currently facilitating for the Jungian Book Club based on the text The Secret of the Golden Flower. I think this exchange helps to illustrate the nature of the problem quite well in terms of how a female person might experience the theory as sexist and prejudicial. And hopefully, all be it too briefly, how a post-Jungian response may redeem the inherent sexism in the original theory.
I posted the following short extract from the SGF text and another passage from the Collected Works,
The word hun is translated by Wilhelm as animus…Hun means then, “cloud-daemon,” a higher, spirit-soul belonging to the yang principle and therefor masculine…The Anima called p’o…is “white-ghost”, belongs to the earth-bound, bodily soul partakes of the yin principle and is therefore feminine….The fact that the animus as well as the anima part after death and go their separate ways independently, shows that…they are separable psychic factors which have markedly different effects, and, despite the fact that they are originally untied in “one effective true essence,” in the “ house of the creative”, they are two.
The animus is in the Heavenly Heart….by day it lives in the eyes (that is in consciousness)…it is that “which we have received from the great emptiness, that which has form from the very beginning.” The anima on the other hand, is the force of heaviness and sadness”; it clings to the bodily, fleshy heart. “Moods and impulses to anger” are its effects. “whoever is dull and moody on waking is fettered by the anima.
(C. G. Jung, The Secret of the Golden Flower. ‘Animus and Anima’, p. 114)
There is no position without its negation. In or just because of their extreme opposition, neither can exist without the other. It is exactly as formulated in classical Chinese philosophy: yang (the light, warm, dry, masculine principle) contains within it the seed of yin (the dark, cold, moist, feminine principle), and vice versa. Matter therefore would contain the seed of spirit and spirit the seed of matter.”
(Carl Jung, CW 9i, para. 197)
This post provoked the following response from one of the female members of the group[3],
…words, or concepts they represent, acquire lives of their own, especially after millennia of use. So it is for me with “masculine/animus” and “feminine/anima.” My life experience and my wounding under the patriarchal system inform my perspective. I am not a vocal feminist, but I am a feminine living and having my being in a masculine created and masculine controlled world. Even what I am as a woman is defined from the masculine perspective. Evil, sin, suffering were brought into the world by the feminine (Eve, Pandora).The Gnostics tried to rescue Eve from that curses, but only replaced her with Sophia, who is responsible for bringing trouble into the world. Jung’s wording in the application [passage] is a reminder of the feminine as negative, while the masculine is described as uplifting/inspiring. No matter how many ways we elaborate, explain, qualify, we cannot escape the fact that even the language itself is androcentric, and subtle, because it can all be made to sound so very reasonable. And my rage, instead of being seen as legitimate, can be dismissed as simply an expression of a mood state/mood disorder – the anima/feminine aspect acting out. And yes, my initial reaction to the wording (Jung’s and Wilhelm’s) was rage. The millennia of patriarchal/androcentric attitude have breathed life into the words/concepts and have become living “truths”…
My reply
I am sympathetic to the objections of inherent sexism, patriarchy, and prejudice in the passage and more broadly in Jungian theory. Not to in any way diminish the objections raised, but to corroborate and affirm them , let me say these objections and problems with Jungian theory have a number of precedents by prominent Jungian scholars, to mention just two here who have raised these issues: Polly-Young Eisendrath[4] and Andrew Samuels[5].
As a a general opening statement I think the most honest and respectful response is a simple concession to the objection.
Let us take this side by side comparison:
“The animus is in the Heavenly Heart…”, and
“The anima on the other hand, is the force of heaviness and sadness”; it clings to the bodily, fleshy heart. “Moods and impulses to anger” are its effects. “whoever is dull and moody on waking is fettered by the anima.”[6]
Its pretty hard not to interpret that as prejudice. And, in as much as the animus is symbolically masculine and the anima feminine in Taoism and Jungian psychology, the prejudice has gender correspondence. It seemingly applies to men and women and their respective differences.
Okay so far so good…or if not “good” exactly, at least we are on solid ground. But as it so often is with these matters, the greater we focus on the matter, the more complex and less clear it becomes.
Serendipitously, whilst I was drafting this response, I had the opportunity to speak with a Jungian alchemist, a living master, on the topic of nothing other than the anima and animus!
He told me three things which all seem relevant and worth repeating given the context of our discussion.
Firstly, he said that Jung makes the point that the alchemists were for the most part, not exclusively, but almost, men. And as such their description of the “feminine principle” is less a description of the objective feminine than it is of the projected “anima”. This immediately tells us two things:
- We can concede the patriarchal prejudice inscribed in the text by virtue of the almost exclusively masculine gender of the authors of the text. In the case of SGF, if the linage we hear is correct then its authorship is exclusively masculine.
- We can find a possible defence for Jungian theory by recognising that the anima whilst symbolically feminine is in fact an image of the feminine held in the unconscious psyche of the masculine, rather than an objective description or characterisation of femininity. Whilst subtle that is a very important distinction. When Jung is speaking of the anima he is speaking of the feminine imago held in the psyche of the masculine.
Beyond the above it is important to recognise that in the post-Jungian movement, among whose ranks I number myself, there is a strong movement away from gender essentialism and linking the anima only to the psyche of men and the animus only to psyche of women.
The above important evolution of this concept in the post-Jungian movement made, let us return to the classical model for a moment.
It is worth noting, that whilst there is arguably a myriad of masculine prejudice tied up in the anima concept, there is also no shortage of idealisation and enchantment. To the extent that the animus – at least in Jungian psychology, is for the most part a poor cousin the anima. Or maybe a better metaphor is to say it is a very plain brother to a larger than life sister – the anima. Whilst that in some sense only confirms the gender prejudice, it also is one which recognise the feminine principle in the form of the anima as a goddess.
Building on the above, let me share two additional short stories told by my enchanting interlocutor this afternoon. Both about the anima in homosexual men, which extends and challenges the stereotypical heteronormative framing of the man’s anima being embodied in the person of his mother or wife (or both).
The first story concerns the well-known Jungian analyst (and expert on the anima as matter of lifelong study and devotion) who also happens to be homosexual. He was once asked about his own view of what exactly the anima was in his life. Without hesitating he said, it the love and relatedness between my partner and me.
The other story also concerns a homosexual Jungian analyst. One who is quite flamboyant. When asked (possibly challenged) during a live lecture as to where he located the anima in his psyche and life, he unhesitatingly answered, “I sir, am the anima!”
I hope that makes the point that in the practice of Jungian psychoanalysis at least, the anima is symbolically but not objectively feminine. And when we talk about her (in hushed tones) we are invoking a psychopomp, not a flesh and blood woman.
End of reply
Conclusion
Whilst the above is far from a conclusive or complete statement on the matter of sexism in the anima-animus model, I do hope it helps to illustrate a few things. Specifically:
- Why there is a legitimate concern in the post-Jungian movement about the sexism of Jung’s original framing of the anima and animus.
- That we can think about and work with the anima (and the animus, although this post focusses on the former) in non-essentialist fashion and more importantly in a way that doesn’t limit access to this intriguing archetype and faculty of soul to a single gender at the expense of the other.
- Illustrates that when we are talking about the anima we are talking about a faculty of soul life, even possibly soul life itself, rather than being limited toa stereotypical and outdated description of the feminine gender.
By way of conclusion, let me say that as challenging as the anima-animus model is in a post-modern, post-binary-gender world, I think it remains immensely valuable and relevant. It is a profound and subtle idea from one of the greatest thinkers in the field of depth psychology and an invaluable tool on the road to consciousness, meaning and individuation. With this in mind, the work being done in the post-Jungian field to reframe the idea within the paradigm of gender- fluidity/plasticity and post-modernity is important and worth pursuing for clinicians, scholars and students of Jungian psychology alike.
Until we speak again,
Stephen.
[1] In a recent chat with the South African psychoanalyst, Michael Benn, he made the same point with respect to the psychoanalytic ideas of perversion and “the dead mother”. Just how subtle these ideas are and knowing them and understanding them is no simple matter. In my own experience of coming to terms with the conceptual framework of Jungian psychology the journey of understanding is ongoing. I can hear the same idea or concept touted a thousand with the conviction of I have understood everything I can about it. Only to one day hear it in a way I was previously unable to and for a new vista to open up, such that I am left wondering how this new insight was not always obvious to me previously!
[2] Polly-Young Eisendrath, The Cambridge Companion to Jung, p. 224
[3] My interlocuter’s name is withheld and her post has been edited to preserve her anonymity.
[4] Jungian Analyst, Psychologist, professor and author, co-editor with Terence Dawson of The Cambridge Companion to Jung.
[5] Founder of the post-Jungian movement, professor and author of numerous books challenging classic Jungian discourse, with attention to issues of sexism, racism and anti-Semitism.
[6] C. G. Jung, The Secret of the Golden Flower. ‘Animus and Anima’, p. 114
Comments (21)
I found this very interesting , particularly since only today have I been wrestling to convey a simple yet succinct description of anima and animus.
Stephen, I’m curious about the woman , described as a female member of the group, whose response , indeed fury at the sexist old fashioned versions , triggered this article.
You say at the end, having credited Jung and Young Eisendrath, that you’ve protected her anonymity.
Was this her wish?
Of all this post, her words rang into my heart. Sadly I feel she has been buried under the very patriarchal word heavy divisiveness she tailed at.
Jeanie we always share clinical vignettes anonymously, it is standard protocol. I’m sorry that you read the post as patriarchal in character, this certainly was not only not my intention but exactly what I sought to avoid. Can I inquire as to why you deem it patriarchal (assuming I have understood you correctly)?
Stephen,
Thank you for replying.
I didn’t Initially perceive it as patriarchal until I noted that other authors were cited, when she wasn’t.
It seems unfair that her identity and voice have been cloaked by “standard protocol”, when it was her authentic and felt response that triggered the inquiry.
I would like to hear more from her, and cite her in my work.
I would like her not to remain “anonymous, identity protected”.
It’s obviously triggered something in me, I take no umbrage with your content, but am alert to the need that process is included in our inquiries, or we will loose the anima aliveness of which we speak.
Thank you, much food for thought. Jeanie
Thanks for clarifying Jeanie. For the record,Young Eisendrath is a woman.
I was aware of that, & don’t believe I inferred that academic writing is a censorship of all women.
In my opinion, adhering to a “standard protocol” seems to excuse the exclusion of some voices; a protocol I regard as hierarchical and patriarchal.
Every voice worthy of inclusion deserves equal acknowledgement.
Thank you.
The fact that this particular lady took offence does not deny the truth within the masculine spirit/light and the feminine earthlyness/darkness. Both, taken separately, are equally dangerous. The masculine spirit/light can become an intellectual, aerial demon as we see in Faust and the earthly mother can give rise to instinctual onesidedness (see the Dyonisian cults).
Both need be balanced by the other and both aspects are present in males and females.
Also, dark does not mean negative, just as light does not mean positive. It is her own views that place such a judgement on them, not Jung’s. It is this lady that splits the masculine and feminine in such extremes, not Jung.
When a woman, like the one in the article takes such an offense she is actually taking a stance against her own inner masculine spirit/light but also denies the value of the maternal, dark htonic body (that we all inhabit). She speaks as if this masculine spirit resides only in men when Jung clearly said that it is part of the woman as well.
We have encountered this problem in my London training, with feminists saying that Jung’s take on anima are a prejudice against the feminine and demeaning of women, though the anima is the countersexual aspect of the man and not of the woman. The irony was that the men, being in minority there (including myself), felt that masculinity was very much under attack and our voice silenced.
But what most Jungians and post-Jungians forget is that anima and animus are PERSONIFICATIONS of the unconscious. As such, they are more or less the form in which the unconscious presents itself to the individuals in relation to the onesidedness of the conscious mind.
I, myself, being from Eastern Europe, I recognise that the typology of women and their animus in Romania are very much on par with how Jung described the animus.
In the West, because of post-modernism and the relativisation of gender, coupled with the denial of the biological sex, the animus and anima act as an “other”.
Andrew Samuels rightly points out that we should think of anima and the animus as “the other” in our psyche, which is close to the truth because the unconscious all the time acts as “the other”
I highly recommend that people read Jung and his works extensively before one makes such judgements and I also urge Jungians to stop being afraid of offending people because of their gender identity. Then we are doing politics not psychology.
Thanks for this value adding comment Romeo. I don’t see any point of difference from the post and appreciate the elaboration.
Hi Stephen,
Could you define ‘post-gender world’, and ‘gender fluidity/plasticity’
Regards,
Damon
Hi Damon
I just poached this explanation from the Wiki entry on gender identity, hopefully it answers your question. The bottom line is we are no longer living in the traditional binary gender world.
“There are many different gender identities, including male, female, transgender, gender neutral, non-binary, agender, pangender, genderqueer, two-spirit, third gender, and all, none or a combination of these.”
Yeah you made a mistake.
Thanks for the response, appreciate that.
Damon no mistake. I was answering your question, what is meant by the term “gender fluid” or “gender plasticity”? If you have a hang up with contemporary gender identity, please don’t make it my problem. I’m simply reporting what is is the case. It might be time to stop burying your head in the sand, along with all the other reactionaries on this issue. Ignoring something or pretending it isn’t so, doesn’t in fact change the facts. That is the axiomatic truth of psychoanalysis.
A suggestion, there are 8 books I have read that are very informative, they are to be read in order the first one is “RIGHT USE IF WILL” Ceanne DeRohan.
It is not Jung that brings said rage to me, rather the constant projections onto the feminine, such as the feminine as nature, the feminine as a goddess that is clearly the projection of the masculine (thus anima) when it comes to goddesses that are not in themselves feminine, but provide that service as such to the masculine. In example, I use the idea of virgin goddesses in the Greek pantheon that in contrast, are not aspects of the masculine. Sophia is not a goddess, it is wisdom, so the Gnostic reference is one that lacks understanding of Gnosticism, which I take issue with since there is no way to separate wisdom from entity that has wisdom, whatever that entity might be. This alchemist you speak of is right on in terms of projection of the anima rather than reference to women: I have had this discussion with an esoteric male friend in the past and this was known to him as well.
Romeo makes an important point. Most ppl who don’t have a deep knowledge of Jungian principles get confused that ANIMA/ANIMUS are
PERSONIFICATIONS of the unconscious.
I find it interesting that feminists take this literally, typical male thinking. Is that the animus speaking? And you tell the story about flamboyant gay male therapist who embraces the anima… in his declaration ! Does snyone else see this irony?
In anycase I’ve been thinking about this info for years and appreciate your thoughtfulness in your approach. Really appreciate the article and comments
Will distribute gingerly.
I spent six years in Jungian analysis with Mary Eileen Dobson at the C.G. Jung Center in Houston, Texas. She was later its Director. Neither Ms. Dobson nor Ruth Thacker Fry, the founder of the Jung Center who went through analysis with Carl Jung, had the problems with these concepts that some women express. As a woman who went through the therapy myself, I have some comments from my own experience and my continued reading.
One primary concern in seeing discussions about any of Jung’s descriptions of the psyche – and they are descriptions, not formulas – is the way even Jungians seem to be materializing them. This is a basic bias in Western culture arising from adherence to positivist scientific and medical approaches. A second concern is that anima is not limited to the male psyche.
First, anima and animus are not even personifications, in my understanding. In what is now called classical Jungian thought, all archetypes, including anima/animus, are energies existing in potentia – with potential for form in images and symbols from human culture. Our culture no longer has any concept of potential existence. And the words, anima/animus I recently read, actually were suggested by Toni Wolf as she helped Jung find language to express these ideas. They were both concerned to describe a contra-sexual reality in both male and female psychic structure. I have experienced these principles as something real.
As well, literalizing an energy in the psyche so that it’s equated with human images was not what Jung and Wolfe were after. If more people would read Jung’s letters to Gustave Pauli and Pauli’s replies, it might be clearer that what Jung at least was after was the nature of psychic energy in itself expressed in archetypes as energy.
And also – in these discussions, anima is being limited to the personal anima in the male psyche. It’s being seen as a PERSON. This to me is a distorted and incomplete grasp of anima in Jung’s thinking. It’s a materializing of a principle of energy that doesn’t exist in a concrete sexual sense at all. Have any people in this discussion read James Hillman’s book, ANIMA? In it he shows – through many quotes in Jungs writings – that in Jung’s thought about anima, there is inherent confusion. Jung speaks of the personal anima, but frequently also of anima as a basic energy principle, a ground in the psyche. Hillman takes this aspect of the concept and redevelops and redirects it completely. He brings out this aspect of anima as the basis of human consciousness. It’s an extremely complex reexamination of this concept.
I am a feminist. At the same time, I see no value in adding feminist projections of chauvinism to a discussion about a non-material energy in the psyche – such non-material energies can only be discussed by symbolic metaphor. They are not accessible to us in any other form. We may as well be in a rage that human beings must speak of these things in symbolic language to grasp the reality at all. Especially when the discussion is not presenting the entirety of Jung’s very complex idea.
One of the things that gets very confused in these discussions is feelings and opinions. Feelings of rage rising out of deep wounds are not opinions. Stepping out of the rage to look at its source and its effects on forming an opinion is necessary. This is one of the distinctions I had to learn to make in myself in my own psychotherapy.
Frankly, because Hillman’s work on anima was not considered, I found the blog incomplete. I hope in future some serious discussion of Hillman’s work will happen.
Paula DeMichele Thank you very much for this valued comment and for bringing Hillman into the discussion.
However, I want to clarify something. When I spoke about anima and animus as personifications, I spoke per Jung’s take on them. Evidently that archetypes exist also in potentia, I am not denying that, but the unconscious appears as such figures in relation to the conscious mind. It is the unconscious who sends a message through this image of anima or animus.
That does not mean that the anima that appears in my dream is a person, it is both a potential but also the unconscious talking via an imago.
As such, my take is that anima/animus or the archetype of the shadow or even the archetype of the shallow water crossing, as Jung names it in one of his seminars, are aspects of the Self. This, in a way, will run counter to Hillman’s take on the plurality of archetypes since in my theory there is only one archetype -the Self.
What Hillman brings forth, which is of extreme value, is that these archetypal images want to individuate, to become conscious, to be embodied and to move beyond the potentia.
And this brings me to the next point, the difference between archetype per se (in potentia) and the archetypal image (the archetype per se in time and space – in the process of embodiment). The archeype per se is impossible to prove and that is why there is still very much debate around the existence and non-existence of archetypes within the Jungian community.
Now, returning to the anima/animus, as you’ve said, they are very much in potentia but there is no denial that there is an imago of the anima or animus.
As for the existence of both anima and animus in men and women, as far as my own analysis and dreams have shown me, the figure of the animus in me was more or less the anima contaminated with my shadow. And this is something that Jung also spoke about. I am not sure that I have an animus, though an argument can be made for the Wise Old Man archetype as an animus figure in men.
Once again, thank you for bringing such a valued and important comment here.
Paula well if the founder himself was confused, then don’t be too hard on me if you found this very complex topic incomplete. Hillman is admittedly brilliant, but bear in mind, by his own admission he takes Jungian theory in directions not necessarily in concert with the founders intentions. Not that that is a bad thing, but to say any Jungian post is incomplete without Hillman is a prejudice. There are many other valuable contributors to post-Jungian thought other than Hillman, in this instance on the topic of the anima, I would highly recommend the work of Andrew Samuels and Polly Young-Eisendrath.
The sparation of the anima as an archetype and what a woman is(?!) is essential to building a healthy relationship betweeen men and women. This task in not only a men’s task only but a women’s too. Women reacted for so long, and are partlly still doing so, to the anima to try to know who they are and also to relate (read also to manipulate) to this men dreaming of goddesses and witches and not able to see women as ordinary creatures! ..This way has been part of collective power relationship… but is now reaching a dead end. At the same time women sought their animus in men. This is also a dead end too! To women I say: who are you? And to men I say: be real!
I think Jung’s point was that the anima creates predictable cognitive distortions when a man projects it onto a women. And the animus creates predictable cognitive distortions when a woman projects it onto a man. It also provides a lot of room for personality differences, where a “masculine” woman or “feminine” man would naturally have different projections. For example a gay man may not project the erotic anima onto a woman but he certainly still projects onto women in predictable ways. Coming to terms with the anima or animus will be a unique journey for every individual. But they are in fact experienced as cognitive distortions. Feminist theory actually has a different word anima projection as experienced by women receiving it, “the male gaze”, which is a perfectly coherent idea. But men also receive the female gaze, which is their animus. For example many women will project tyrant onto men. Or they might project hero, which is an idealization equally distorted as men projecting love goddess. Etc. And men also can project heroine onto a woman as well which is also an idealization. There really ought not to be a feminist objection once it is realized what the anima is referring to. What I have seen is many women want men to take back some of these projections so they are not constantly objectified and seen as more than just a two dimensional projected desire. And conversely many men are projected on in equally two dimensional ways.
The point of the concept is to gain a sketch and understanding as to how we MIGHT project onto the opposite sex. It is a loose scheme not a precise dogma. The point is to pay attention as to how we project, take back the projection, and develop the projected aspects.
For Jung, the Assumptio was a sign of the times pointing toward the equality of women, women’s rights, and how this equality had been finally and officially raised to the metaphysical realm in the figure of the divine woman. ~Rafael Monzo, Homage to MLVF, Page 413
For Jung, this dogma [Assumption of Mary] completed St. John’s apocalyptic marriage of the lamb and referred as well to the coniunctio of the heavenly bride and heavenly bridegroom prophesied in the day of judgment. ~Rafael Monzo, Homage to MLVF, Page 414
One should not forget that Jung was the first to show a way and to promote it, long before there was Women’s Lib and such things; showing that we now have to try, for the first time in history, to establish a real relationship between men and women beyond the blind attraction through the projection of animus and anima. ~Marie-Louise Von Franz, The Cat: A Tale of Feminine Redemption, Page 93-94
https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2020/10/17/carl-jung-on-women-anthology-2/#.YzA_YHbMK3A
Carl Jung and the Virgin Mary–projection of anima
Carl Jung was a great analyst. Not only was he Freud’s anointed—declining his offer to take over his psychoanalytic school—but probably the only psychologist who ever analyzed the image and role of the Blessed Virgin Mary throughout history.
Fourteen years before Hitler came to power Jung commented on the struggle for the heart and soul of Germany. In his book The Role of the Unconscious: Civilization in Tradition he introduced the idea that Christianity was losing its grip on Western civilization while the old gods of Europe were gaining their ascendancy. Jung explained that the Christian world view was losing its authority and that as this happened the blond beast, known as National Socialism, would one day burst forth with devastating consequences. Three years before Hitler came to power, Jung further explained that mythological characterizations of Wotan, the past German god of thunder and war, were no empty fantasies. As events unfolded Jung proved correct when certain members of the Nazi party openly promoted Wotan through the movement of Positive Christianity whose members worked for, among other things, the total destruction of the Roman Catholic Church.
Before continuing
Before reviewing Jung’s research on the psychological and spiritual role of the Virgin Mary throughout history, I place him in a wider context of what was happening in Europe at that time. The reader needs to be aware that although Jung’s approach to understanding the events of his day came closer than others in fathoming the psychological and spiritual realities around them, they were limited. After the war he sadly confessed to his shortcomings.
I begin in 1934, with the persecution of the Jews well-underway. In the journal Zentralblatt Jung likened the Jewish nation to a nomadic people who had a need to flourish in their development at the expense of host nations. When reading Jung, I could not help but think of fleas sucking the blood from their animal host. He begins: “The Jew, who is something of a nomad, has never yet created a cultural form of his own…since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development.” In contrast was the youthful ‘Aryan’ unconscious which had a higher potential than that of the Jewish people, although it was still not fully weaned from its barbarism. In this sense to apply Jewish categories of medical psychology to Germans was to say the least, problematic. For his meandering into unchartered waters some accused Jung of anti-Semitism —meaning that to acknowledge the German “depth of soul” made it necessary to embrace anti-Semitism. In explaining his position Jung continued that Freud “did not understand the Germanic psyche.” With this and other comments through his German publication he must have known that he was catering to a readership of which many were blinded by anti-Semitic racial hatreds. Ann Belford Ulanov comments that “Jung mixed the boundary lines” …and “paid the price”. By drawing whole peoples into types, he inflamed “persecution against” the Jews—and because of this “his name goes on suffering the label of anti-Semitism.”
Although many hold that Jung was not racially anti-Semitic or even consciously anti-Judaic, he did unfortunately feed into some of the deeper unconscious streams of anti-Judaism. Why else would he write what he did? Looking to the memoirs of Otto Wagener and one of Hitler’s speeches we realize a remarkable parallel with Jung. At one time Hitler stated:
Without a doubt, there are great advantages to Jewry in maintaining such purity. By exploiting and advancing its parasitic nomadic instinct, it has practically fostered in its people down through the generations an almost acrobatic skill at finding those points in the total life process of the host nations that allow in the easiest opportunity to graft on and secure domination and control of the total life cycle. The Jews’ completely materialistic way of thinking makes this takeover even easier, and the higher the ideals of the people are, the more promptly they fall prey to the Jews’ realistic economic penetration.
Although no date is attached to Wagener’s accounting of Hitler’s speech, we see that Jung cannot be let off the hook so easily.
In response to Jung’s article, Andrew Samuels—a Jungian analyst—states that Jung viewed himself as “the psychologist of nations” and that his “theorizing was threatened by the existence of the Jews, this strange nation without a land and, hence, in Jung’s words of 1918, lacking a chthonic quality, a good relation to the earth.” Jung’s whole approach to the “psychology of nation” was threatened by this strange nation without cultural forms—that is, without national cultural forms—thereby distilling into the logic behind Jung’s words of 1933—requiring a “host nation.” In final analysis, after the war, Jung realized that he had stepped over the line and admitted as such to his dentist Dr. Sigmund Hurwitz who himself became an analyst—“I have written in my long life many books, and I have also written nonsense. Unfortunately, that [article] was nonsense.”
Aryeh Maidenbaum—another Jungian analyst—sheds light on the matter by pointing out that although Jung failed to speak out for persecuted Jewry, many Jews “generally do not consider [him] anti-Semitic on a personal level”—especially given the many instances in which he helped Jews—not consider here.
Another mark against Jung was his involvement with the psychotherapists in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1940 at which time some of the above comments were published. Geoffrey Cocks recounts that “on September 15 [1933] a German [analytical] society was founded under the leadership of psychotherapist Matthias Heinrich Göring as part of what was to become an international society headed by Jung.” This was “constituted in May of 1934.” At that time Jung “became editor of the society’s journal, the Zentralblatt für Psychotherapie published in Germany by Hirzel Verlag of Leipzig.” It is here that he “published his observations on the distinctions between German and Jewish psychology alongside calls by Göring to the Nazi colors. According to Hans Dieckmann, although this did not prove Jung’s anti-Semitism, it did show that “Jung became at least unconsciously infected by Nazi ideas and wrote his irresponsible message in the Zentralblatt…stressing…the distinction between German and Jewish psychology.” “Dieckmann maintains that Jung…placed Aryan unconscious over the Jewish, and spoke in a more or less admiring manner of the “powerful phenomenon of National Socialism.” Maidenbaum adds that when interviewing Dr. Meier, one of the editors of the Zentralblatt, he was told that “Jung was not” directly “involved in any of the details of its publication, but had delegated” to others.
As Jung’s articles were placed alongside pro-German Nazis analysts, they obviously left him to be seen as part of that group. He must have known of the horrendous nature of these publications between 1934-1939. What was the great temptation—Samuels asks? “Why did Jung get involved with German political affairs in the way he did? Why did he feel obliged to publish his thoughts on ‘Jewish psychology’ at such a sensitive moment? Was there anything in the structure of his work up until then that made his active involvement an inevitability?” The response to these questions becomes apparent when we realize that Jung was deeply committed to the necessity of connecting with German psychotherapy so that analysis would eventually be accepted throughout the world. “After all,” writes Samuels, “Freud had once written to Jung that psychoanalysis would never find its true status until it had been accepted in Germany.” And so, to be charitable to Jung, it was a matter of his being undermined in a way that he did not and could not predict. In reaching for universal recognition of the analytical cause he failed to come to terms with the dangerous reality which he himself had once predicted.
Lest the reader should think that my critique of Jung is unfair I need only to report his meeting with Leo Baeck after the war at which time he waited for over two hours at Baeck’s hotel to apologize. “Baeck was the chief rabbi of Berlin who, after having entered the Theresienstadt concentration camp at the age of sixty-nine, emerged a survivor.” Baeck accepted Jung’s apology.
James Kirsch echoes another event—remembering when he met Jung after the war. He writes: “The first time I saw Jung after the war in July of 1947, the first thing that” he “did was to remember” our “conversation” wherein he articulated positive outcomes of the Nazi movement “and” apologized “for some things he had written at that time.” Apart from these two acts of contrition we see that Jung seldom spoke or wrote of his past negations of Jewish identity and how these related to his own unconscious predeterminations. One can only speculate that when Jung analyzed his own Christian tradition, whether he fully realized what he was carrying within. Samuels asks: “Similarly, can analytical psychologists employ psychological and critical reflections on Jung’s anti-Semitism, so that some kind of personal or professional renewal [can result]? Could such critical reflections “lead to a more productive engagement of analytical psychology, and also of depth psychology in general”? He continues, “I suggest that renewal will not occur until Jungians resolve their work of mourning for Jung. Once again, I add that Jungians are not alone in having problems disidentifying from the great man who still dominates their discipline.” Samuels’ advancements are well-taken when we read that Maidenbaum names a yet further consideration, for inviting Jungians to consider the evolution of their movement. At one time Samuels was given “a copy of a secret document from the archives of the Psychological Club of Zurich”…which…“adopted a 10 percent quota on Jewish membership” and…“put into writing by C.A. Meier and two other signatories” in 1944. Although such quotas were part and parcel of all institutes of higher learning in those days, one can only assume that Jungians were in some way cut from the same fabric as all the rest.
*
Considering the above I examine Jung’s relationship with Judaism according to a certain form of spiritual/psychological myopia not only held by Jung but by the entirety of Western Civilization at the time of the Nazis. Here I unpack a yet unnamed and repressed psychological and spiritual principle in play at that time.
With Jung’s deficiencies stated, I now pay homage to his great genius and what led him to become interested in tracing the Virgin Mary’s image and Marian devotion throughout history.
Jung realized that history is driven by unconscious forces linked to both individual and society. On several occasions, he stated that Christianity and dogma were not something to be shunned but rather linked to immediate experience. At another time he stated: Not only was he open to the Christian message, but he also considered “it of importance for Western man. It [always] needs, however, to be seen in a new light, in accordance with the changes wrought by the contemporary spirit. Otherwise, it stands apart from the times, and has no effect on man’s wholeness.” For Jung religious dogma had to do with the individual striving toward psychological wholeness. Through his study of Marian devotion and prayer he observed that a person could become conscious of certain possibilities in life.
One does not have to be a Jungian to grasp Jung’s reasons for exploring Marian devotion. It begins with his concept of individuation whereby a person develops an individuated psyche out of what is called the collective unconscious. This process of individuation, whereby one becomes “conscious of oneself with the help of the objective materials of the unconscious”—dreams and symbols—has parallels with Christian prayer and Marian devotion. To briefly explain, Jung held that the unconscious embraces archetypes—realities which exist below personal consciousness called the collective unconscious. Archetypes “are not innate ideas; rather they are analogous to instincts” and “are capable of determining thought and idea.” Archetypes together with instincts “invoke patterns of action” as well as “the upsurge of typical fantasy images, emotions and ideas.” Around this Jung realized that the maternal instinct appears in the mother figures of all religions, as well as myth. Within the Catholic faith these are best represented through religious iconography including depictions and pious devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Through Marian devotion the feminine nurturing qualities in the devotee’s life are heightened (anima), offering balance to a potentially ungrounded masculine warrior (animus) or male-driven energy that wreaks havoc when left to its own devices—dislodged from anima. For Jung the anima is also that part of the psyche which directs the person inward toward the unconscious. It is both “a personal complex and an archetypal image of the woman in the male psyche.”
Jung noticed that through devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary the devotee was protected from overestimating and deifying the other sex, thus creating room for a simple, reasonable human relationship. Together anima and animus are incarnated anew in every person and contribute to the phenomenon of psychological projection. Projection is something which takes place from the shadow side of the personality when a personal inferiority is placed on to an external entity and is then “recognized as a perceived moral deficiency” in the other. For Jung this understanding had significant implications for his therapeutic approach. Von Franz, one of Jung’s students holds that, “whenever we abandon the search for rational and outer solutions of our problems and turn within to see what is wrong there, we first discover, as Jung has shown, all sorts of repressed, forgotten psychological trends and representations, which are mostly not agreeable to our conscious view of ourselves. These trends are often personified in dreams in the figures of our ‘best’ enemies, not so much an enemy but a person we utterly despise.” Jung called such repressions the shadow side of personality. If remained unacknowledged people project onto others and become obsessed. The other comes to have power over them—we think about them all the time. Every person possesses these patterns or constellations of unowned repressions. These affect both personal and social relationships. In their unhealthy aspects repressions and projections lead to neurosis and various collective pathologies. Once the phenomenon of projection is understood it can be addressed and worked through—bringing wholeness and healing to the affected individual and to society in general.
One example
One example of Marian devotion—viewed as engaging anima—comes to us through Western civilization and the rise of ascetical monasticism—shortly after the time when Christianity became the state religion. Here we discover that the model for Christian praxis beginning at that time, changed from one of prayer, reflection and action—as outlined in the Christian Scriptures—to one of ascetical monasticism. How did this work? Simply put the newly hoped for Christian empire instead of offering strength and vitality for Constantine’s new kingdom, suddenly found itself in danger of imploding. In a marvelous turnaround of history faithful Christians flocked to the desert forming monastic communities. These communities became the inspirational edifice for the new empire. Within them emerged schools derived from Hellenistic philosophy merged with contemplative and discursive practices—all defined and based on Christian principals. Included were the ideals of covenant, prayer, celibacy, virginity, ascetical practices, etc. These in turn led to prayers aspiring in purity of heart, inward peace and communal transformation—all based upon what Jung would centuries later reference as personal and collective transformation based on the projection of anima (in his language active imagination). Hilda Graef writes that as Mother of God, it would only seem natural that the Virgin Mary would be presented as the ideal example for monastic life. She traces this trajectory back to a Coptic document which belonged to the Council of Nicaea dated 325 and “printed among the gnomai of proverbs of the Council.” Here Mary is no longer a simple Jewish woman but rather one who lives an austere life of solitude consorting “only with angels.” Her Jewish roots are inconsequential. In this we see that Mary—according to Jungian typology—was transformed into a type of anima projection.
What we have here is a convergence of Jung’s psychological understanding of anima/animus with Catholic belief and practice throughout the centuries. In this Catholics hold that devotion to Mary is united with, and anchored in, the life death and resurrection of Jesus—symbolic of animus. This notion is aptly articulated in the present catechism of the catholic church, mentioned earlier, wherein it states #487 “that what the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.”
Catholics throughout history have always placed great value on the feminine aspects of their faith. The Virgin Mary is the ideal conveyer of feminine qualities—although other female characters within the scriptures hold lesser functions.
When it comes to Mary, one can view devotion to her as either a “fantasized” psychological projection, or—as seen through the eyes of faith—as actually connecting to, and communing with Mary, now reigning with Jesus in heaven. In so far as one’s prayers are answered, Mary’s intercession is viewed as efficacious, powerful, and filled with grace for both personal and communal transformation. Accordingly, Marian devotion entails more than intellect. It involves affect, empathy, inclusivity, imagery, art, dance, celebration, story, myth, birth, death, hope, etc. For Catholics these feminine aspects have moral implications as well in the sense that just as the Virgin Mary was holy, loving, devout, chaste, etc., so too, these qualities are striven for by those who follow in her footsteps. But what about Mary’s Jewish identity? How does this come into play? It is here that Jung became a reflection of his culture, in that Mary’s Jewish identity is seen as having little significance.
Throughout his investigation of Marian piety, Jung realized similar characterizations coming through other feminine figures in mythology, song, folklore, fairy tales, narrative, etc. With his analysis of Marian devotion, he developed his understanding of the feminine principle according to four stages: Eve, Helen of Troy, Mary, and Sophia” —three including biblical perspectives.
Finally, was Jung’s realization that psychological wholeness is not only about the here and now but also has implications for the future. In this it has an eschatological dimension towards psychological well-being. Just as Jesus and the Virgin Mary are believed to be in heaven, so too the followers of Jung hope to follow—although not within the heavenly realm—but along the pathway to psychological wholeness. In theology this aspect of the “here and now” is what is known as “realized eschatology.” In other words, the Christian faith is not only about the hereafter but is also about connecting with certain psychological and spiritual realities beyond the landscape of materialist definition—parallel to resurrection and ascension into eternal life—that being working through to wholeness and wellbeing. Jung knew this and by limiting matters to the psychological domain he was able to accentuate psychic wholeness over a faith belief in the hereafter, while at the same time not negating it.
Four archetypal models
Jung’s analysis of the role of Marian art and Marian devotion throughout history consists of four archetypal models. The Dominican priest Thomas O’Meara gives us a good-enough overview:
First, is that which is defined according to Mary’s immaculate conception, whereby Mary is defined as a sinless virgin, immaculately conceived. She is the first one to be redeemed out of sinful humanity, thereby becoming an intercessor and patroness for all. Mary partakes of, and is for Catholics, “the” first and foremost anima archetype.
Although Mary’s Immaculate Conception was proclaimed as dogma in 1854 in the Vatican document Ineffabilis Deus—outlining this special Marian privilege—it has been held throughout most of the Church’s entire existence as a pious belief. When visiting a church in southern Mexico, I noticed a few of the local men doing something most peculiar. Each had a white Lilly in their hand. They climbed on a pew near the front of the church and were gently rubbing their flowers at the base of a giant picture of the Virgin Mother holding her infant, Jesus. They were grounding their prayer by projecting their anima-animus on to Mary and Jesus.
O’Meara’s second model of Jung’s Marian analysis is the “mother-archetype”—Mary is the “mother” who brings qualities which transcend reason, fertility, and rebirth. Jung explains that here mankind is not to be destroyed but saved through the God-man Jesus, born of Mary. In this the Second Adam is to be seen as born of a human woman. “So, this time priority falls to the second Eve, not only in a temporal sense but in a material sense as well . . . Thus Mary, the virgin, is chosen as the pure vessel for the coming birth of God.” Accordingly, Mary is the one who restores order while bestowing new beginnings to the human situation. She reverses the fall of our first parents and becomes the New Eve.
In his living room before his death, Jung had a huge painting of the Nativity showing just how much he respected and venerated Christian tradition.
Jung’s third Marian archetype involves the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Here, Mary is viewed not in opposition to the Trinity but according to the psychological sense of wholeness best depicted in medieval iconography representing her as Theotokos whereby there evolved a quaternity symbolized in the representation of the crowning of the Blessed Virgin as Queen of Heaven. Mary—defined as Theotokos shortly after the Council of Chalcedon in 451 C.E.—is viewed in union with the Church in its defense against those who would question the divinity of her son, Jesus. He sees this later development of Marian typology coming from a need to place “evil” as well as the “feminine” in relation to the godhead. Evil must come under God’s dominion otherwise God could not be all in all. By examining medieval paintings Jung realized that in a number of instances Mary was placed in relation to the divine figures of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, bringing to completion missing feminine aspects within the Trinity.
This leads us to Jung’s fourth model having to do with the assumption of Mary into heaven.
O’Meara notes that the papal declaration of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary—Munificentissimus Deus (1950)—for Jung was “the unconscious tradition and destiny of Catholicism.”
The doctrine of Mary’s Assumption into heaven has existed since early beginnings and has always been part and parcel of the Catholic landscape, acquiring renewed significance on November 1950 when proclaimed as infallible dogma by Pius XII. The dogma states that Mary was preserved from original sin and was taken up to the glory of heaven where, she now sits at the right hand of her Son. After hearing about this new papal definition Jung concluded that Mary’s divinity may now “be regarded as a tacit conclusion probabilis, and so too may the worship or adoration to which she is entitled.” Her role was enhanced as forever being with divinity in the sense that the feminine is now included in the metaphysical realm just as the masculine is through Jesus.
In conclusion it must that Jung cherished several aspects of the Christian tradition so much so that at one time he wrote:
I thank God every day that I have been permitted to experience the reality of the imago Dei in me. Had that not been so, I would be a bitter enemy of Christianity and of the Church in particular. Thanks to this actus gratiae my life has meaning, and my inner eye was opened to the beauty and grandeur of dogma.
Section IV
Conclusion
In conclusion, Jung’s take on dogma was at odds with Hitler’s who in October 1941 stated that the,
best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble” — [more on this below].
In my next few chapters I investigate some of the history that lay behind Marian dogmatics.
Chapter 13
Carl Jung and the Virgin Mary
Carl Jung was a great analyst. Not only was he Freud’s anointed—declining his offer to take over his psychoanalytic school—but probably the only psychologist who ever analyzed the image and role of the Blessed Virgin Mary throughout history.
Fourteen years before Hitler came to power Jung commented on the struggle for the heart and soul of Germany. In his book The Role of the Unconscious: Civilization in Tradition he introduced the idea that Christianity was losing its grip on Western civilization while the old gods of Europe were gaining their ascendancy. Jung explained that the Christian world view was losing its authority and that as this happened the blond beast, known as National Socialism, would one day burst forth with devastating consequences. Three years before Hitler came to power, Jung further explained that mythological characterizations of Wotan, the past German god of thunder and war, were no empty fantasies. As events unfolded Jung proved correct when certain members of the Nazi party openly promoted Wotan through the movement of Positive Christianity whose members worked for, among other things, the total destruction of the Roman Catholic Church.
Before continuing
Before reviewing Jung’s research on the psychological and spiritual role of the Virgin Mary throughout history, I place him in a wider context of what was happening in Europe at that time. The reader needs to be aware that although Jung’s approach to understanding the events of his day came closer than others in fathoming the psychological and spiritual realities around them, they were limited. After the war he sadly confessed to his shortcomings.
I begin in 1934, with the persecution of the Jews well-underway. In the journal Zentralblatt Jung likened the Jewish nation to a nomadic people who had a need to flourish in their development at the expense of host nations. When reading Jung, I could not help but think of fleas sucking the blood from their animal host. He begins: “The Jew, who is something of a nomad, has never yet created a cultural form of his own…since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development.” In contrast was the youthful ‘Aryan’ unconscious which had a higher potential than that of the Jewish people, although it was still not fully weaned from its barbarism. In this sense to apply Jewish categories of medical psychology to Germans was to say the least, problematic. For his meandering into unchartered waters some accused Jung of anti-Semitism —meaning that to acknowledge the German “depth of soul” made it necessary to embrace anti-Semitism. In explaining his position Jung continued that Freud “did not understand the Germanic psyche.” With this and other comments through his German publication he must have known that he was catering to a readership of which many were blinded by anti-Semitic racial hatreds. Ann Belford Ulanov comments that “Jung mixed the boundary lines” …and “paid the price”. By drawing whole peoples into types, he inflamed “persecution against” the Jews—and because of this “his name goes on suffering the label of anti-Semitism.”
Although many hold that Jung was not racially anti-Semitic or even consciously anti-Judaic, he did unfortunately feed into some of the deeper unconscious streams of anti-Judaism. Why else would he write what he did? Looking to the memoirs of Otto Wagener and one of Hitler’s speeches we realize a remarkable parallel with Jung. At one time Hitler stated:
Without a doubt, there are great advantages to Jewry in maintaining such purity. By exploiting and advancing its parasitic nomadic instinct, it has practically fostered in its people down through the generations an almost acrobatic skill at finding those points in the total life process of the host nations that allow in the easiest opportunity to graft on and secure domination and control of the total life cycle. The Jews’ completely materialistic way of thinking makes this takeover even easier, and the higher the ideals of the people are, the more promptly they fall prey to the Jews’ realistic economic penetration.
Although no date is attached to Wagener’s accounting of Hitler’s speech, we see that Jung cannot be let off the hook so easily.
In response to Jung’s article, Andrew Samuels—a Jungian analyst—states that Jung viewed himself as “the psychologist of nations” and that his “theorizing was threatened by the existence of the Jews, this strange nation without a land and, hence, in Jung’s words of 1918, lacking a chthonic quality, a good relation to the earth.” Jung’s whole approach to the “psychology of nation” was threatened by this strange nation without cultural forms—that is, without national cultural forms—thereby distilling into the logic behind Jung’s words of 1933—requiring a “host nation.” In final analysis, after the war, Jung realized that he had stepped over the line and admitted as such to his dentist Dr. Sigmund Hurwitz who himself became an analyst—“I have written in my long life many books, and I have also written nonsense. Unfortunately, that [article] was nonsense.”
Aryeh Maidenbaum—another Jungian analyst—sheds light on the matter by pointing out that although Jung failed to speak out for persecuted Jewry, many Jews “generally do not consider [him] anti-Semitic on a personal level”—especially given the many instances in which he helped Jews—not consider here.
Another mark against Jung was his involvement with the psychotherapists in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1940 at which time some of the above comments were published. Geoffrey Cocks recounts that “on September 15 [1933] a German [analytical] society was founded under the leadership of psychotherapist Matthias Heinrich Göring as part of what was to become an international society headed by Jung.” This was “constituted in May of 1934.” At that time Jung “became editor of the society’s journal, the Zentralblatt für Psychotherapie published in Germany by Hirzel Verlag of Leipzig.” It is here that he “published his observations on the distinctions between German and Jewish psychology alongside calls by Göring to the Nazi colors. According to Hans Dieckmann, although this did not prove Jung’s anti-Semitism, it did show that “Jung became at least unconsciously infected by Nazi ideas and wrote his irresponsible message in the Zentralblatt…stressing…the distinction between German and Jewish psychology.” “Dieckmann maintains that Jung…placed Aryan unconscious over the Jewish, and spoke in a more or less admiring manner of the “powerful phenomenon of National Socialism.” Maidenbaum adds that when interviewing Dr. Meier, one of the editors of the Zentralblatt, he was told that “Jung was not” directly “involved in any of the details of its publication, but had delegated” to others.
As Jung’s articles were placed alongside pro-German Nazis analysts, they obviously left him to be seen as part of that group. He must have known of the horrendous nature of these publications between 1934-1939. What was the great temptation—Samuels asks? “Why did Jung get involved with German political affairs in the way he did? Why did he feel obliged to publish his thoughts on ‘Jewish psychology’ at such a sensitive moment? Was there anything in the structure of his work up until then that made his active involvement an inevitability?” The response to these questions becomes apparent when we realize that Jung was deeply committed to the necessity of connecting with German psychotherapy so that analysis would eventually be accepted throughout the world. “After all,” writes Samuels, “Freud had once written to Jung that psychoanalysis would never find its true status until it had been accepted in Germany.” And so, to be charitable to Jung, it was a matter of his being undermined in a way that he did not and could not predict. In reaching for universal recognition of the analytical cause he failed to come to terms with the dangerous reality which he himself had once predicted.
Lest the reader should think that my critique of Jung is unfair I need only to report his meeting with Leo Baeck after the war at which time he waited for over two hours at Baeck’s hotel to apologize. “Baeck was the chief rabbi of Berlin who, after having entered the Theresienstadt concentration camp at the age of sixty-nine, emerged a survivor.” Baeck accepted Jung’s apology.
James Kirsch echoes another event—remembering when he met Jung after the war. He writes: “The first time I saw Jung after the war in July of 1947, the first thing that” he “did was to remember” our “conversation” wherein he articulated positive outcomes of the Nazi movement “and” apologized “for some things he had written at that time.” Apart from these two acts of contrition we see that Jung seldom spoke or wrote of his past negations of Jewish identity and how these related to his own unconscious predeterminations. One can only speculate that when Jung analyzed his own Christian tradition, whether he fully realized what he was carrying within. Samuels asks: “Similarly, can analytical psychologists employ psychological and critical reflections on Jung’s anti-Semitism, so that some kind of personal or professional renewal [can result]? Could such critical reflections “lead to a more productive engagement of analytical psychology, and also of depth psychology in general”? He continues, “I suggest that renewal will not occur until Jungians resolve their work of mourning for Jung. Once again, I add that Jungians are not alone in having problems disidentifying from the great man who still dominates their discipline.” Samuels’ advancements are well-taken when we read that Maidenbaum names a yet further consideration, for inviting Jungians to consider the evolution of their movement. At one time Samuels was given “a copy of a secret document from the archives of the Psychological Club of Zurich”…which…“adopted a 10 percent quota on Jewish membership” and…“put into writing by C.A. Meier and two other signatories” in 1944. Although such quotas were part and parcel of all institutes of higher learning in those days, one can only assume that Jungians were in some way cut from the same fabric as all the rest.
*
Considering the above I examine Jung’s relationship with Judaism according to a certain form of spiritual/psychological myopia not only held by Jung but by the entirety of Western Civilization at the time of the Nazis. Here I unpack a yet unnamed and repressed psychological and spiritual principle in play at that time.
With Jung’s deficiencies stated, I now pay homage to his great genius and what led him to become interested in tracing the Virgin Mary’s image and Marian devotion throughout history.
Jung realized that history is driven by unconscious forces linked to both individual and society. On several occasions, he stated that Christianity and dogma were not something to be shunned but rather linked to immediate experience. At another time he stated: Not only was he open to the Christian message, but he also considered “it of importance for Western man. It [always] needs, however, to be seen in a new light, in accordance with the changes wrought by the contemporary spirit. Otherwise, it stands apart from the times, and has no effect on man’s wholeness.” For Jung religious dogma had to do with the individual striving toward psychological wholeness. Through his study of Marian devotion and prayer he observed that a person could become conscious of certain possibilities in life.
One does not have to be a Jungian to grasp Jung’s reasons for exploring Marian devotion. It begins with his concept of individuation whereby a person develops an individuated psyche out of what is called the collective unconscious. This process of individuation, whereby one becomes “conscious of oneself with the help of the objective materials of the unconscious”—dreams and symbols—has parallels with Christian prayer and Marian devotion. To briefly explain, Jung held that the unconscious embraces archetypes—realities which exist below personal consciousness called the collective unconscious. Archetypes “are not innate ideas; rather they are analogous to instincts” and “are capable of determining thought and idea.” Archetypes together with instincts “invoke patterns of action” as well as “the upsurge of typical fantasy images, emotions and ideas.” Around this Jung realized that the maternal instinct appears in the mother figures of all religions, as well as myth. Within the Catholic faith these are best represented through religious iconography including depictions and pious devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Through Marian devotion the feminine nurturing qualities in the devotee’s life are heightened (anima), offering balance to a potentially ungrounded masculine warrior (animus) or male-driven energy that wreaks havoc when left to its own devices—dislodged from anima. For Jung the anima is also that part of the psyche which directs the person inward toward the unconscious. It is both “a personal complex and an archetypal image of the woman in the male psyche.”
Jung noticed that through devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary the devotee was protected from overestimating and deifying the other sex, thus creating room for a simple, reasonable human relationship. Together anima and animus are incarnated anew in every person and contribute to the phenomenon of psychological projection. Projection is something which takes place from the shadow side of the personality when a personal inferiority is placed on to an external entity and is then “recognized as a perceived moral deficiency” in the other. For Jung this understanding had significant implications for his therapeutic approach. Von Franz, one of Jung’s students holds that, “whenever we abandon the search for rational and outer solutions of our problems and turn within to see what is wrong there, we first discover, as Jung has shown, all sorts of repressed, forgotten psychological trends and representations, which are mostly not agreeable to our conscious view of ourselves. These trends are often personified in dreams in the figures of our ‘best’ enemies, not so much an enemy but a person we utterly despise.” Jung called such repressions the shadow side of personality. If remained unacknowledged people project onto others and become obsessed. The other comes to have power over them—we think about them all the time. Every person possesses these patterns or constellations of unowned repressions. These affect both personal and social relationships. In their unhealthy aspects repressions and projections lead to neurosis and various collective pathologies. Once the phenomenon of projection is understood it can be addressed and worked through—bringing wholeness and healing to the affected individual and to society in general.
One example
One example of Marian devotion—viewed as engaging anima—comes to us through Western civilization and the rise of ascetical monasticism—shortly after the time when Christianity became the state religion. Here we discover that the model for Christian praxis beginning at that time, changed from one of prayer, reflection and action—as outlined in the Christian Scriptures—to one of ascetical monasticism. How did this work? Simply put the newly hoped for Christian empire instead of offering strength and vitality for Constantine’s new kingdom, suddenly found itself in danger of imploding. In a marvelous turnaround of history faithful Christians flocked to the desert forming monastic communities. These communities became the inspirational edifice for the new empire. Within them emerged schools derived from Hellenistic philosophy merged with contemplative and discursive practices—all defined and based on Christian principals. Included were the ideals of covenant, prayer, celibacy, virginity, ascetical practices, etc. These in turn led to prayers aspiring in purity of heart, inward peace and communal transformation—all based upon what Jung would centuries later reference as personal and collective transformation based on the projection of anima (in his language active imagination). Hilda Graef writes that as Mother of God, it would only seem natural that the Virgin Mary would be presented as the ideal example for monastic life. She traces this trajectory back to a Coptic document which belonged to the Council of Nicaea dated 325 and “printed among the gnomai of proverbs of the Council.” Here Mary is no longer a simple Jewish woman but rather one who lives an austere life of solitude consorting “only with angels.” Her Jewish roots are inconsequential. In this we see that Mary—according to Jungian typology—was transformed into a type of anima projection.
What we have here is a convergence of Jung’s psychological understanding of anima/animus with Catholic belief and practice throughout the centuries. In this Catholics hold that devotion to Mary is united with, and anchored in, the life death and resurrection of Jesus—symbolic of animus. This notion is aptly articulated in the present catechism of the catholic church, mentioned earlier, wherein it states #487 “that what the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.”
Catholics throughout history have always placed great value on the feminine aspects of their faith. The Virgin Mary is the ideal conveyer of feminine qualities—although other female characters within the scriptures hold lesser functions.
When it comes to Mary, one can view devotion to her as either a “fantasized” psychological projection, or—as seen through the eyes of faith—as actually connecting to, and communing with Mary, now reigning with Jesus in heaven. In so far as one’s prayers are answered, Mary’s intercession is viewed as efficacious, powerful, and filled with grace for both personal and communal transformation. Accordingly, Marian devotion entails more than intellect. It involves affect, empathy, inclusivity, imagery, art, dance, celebration, story, myth, birth, death, hope, etc. For Catholics these feminine aspects have moral implications as well in the sense that just as the Virgin Mary was holy, loving, devout, chaste, etc., so too, these qualities are striven for by those who follow in her footsteps. But what about Mary’s Jewish identity? How does this come into play? It is here that Jung became a reflection of his culture, in that Mary’s Jewish identity is seen as having little significance.
Throughout his investigation of Marian piety, Jung realized similar characterizations coming through other feminine figures in mythology, song, folklore, fairy tales, narrative, etc. With his analysis of Marian devotion, he developed his understanding of the feminine principle according to four stages: Eve, Helen of Troy, Mary, and Sophia” —three including biblical perspectives.
Finally, was Jung’s realization that psychological wholeness is not only about the here and now but also has implications for the future. In this it has an eschatological dimension towards psychological well-being. Just as Jesus and the Virgin Mary are believed to be in heaven, so too the followers of Jung hope to follow—although not within the heavenly realm—but along the pathway to psychological wholeness. In theology this aspect of the “here and now” is what is known as “realized eschatology.” In other words, the Christian faith is not only about the hereafter but is also about connecting with certain psychological and spiritual realities beyond the landscape of materialist definition—parallel to resurrection and ascension into eternal life—that being working through to wholeness and wellbeing. Jung knew this and by limiting matters to the psychological domain he was able to accentuate psychic wholeness over a faith belief in the hereafter, while at the same time not negating it.
Four archetypal models
Jung’s analysis of the role of Marian art and Marian devotion throughout history consists of four archetypal models. The Dominican priest Thomas O’Meara gives us a good-enough overview:
First, is that which is defined according to Mary’s immaculate conception, whereby Mary is defined as a sinless virgin, immaculately conceived. She is the first one to be redeemed out of sinful humanity, thereby becoming an intercessor and patroness for all. Mary partakes of, and is for Catholics, “the” first and foremost anima archetype.
Although Mary’s Immaculate Conception was proclaimed as dogma in 1854 in the Vatican document Ineffabilis Deus—outlining this special Marian privilege—it has been held throughout most of the Church’s entire existence as a pious belief. When visiting a church in southern Mexico, I noticed a few of the local men doing something most peculiar. Each had a white Lilly in their hand. They climbed on a pew near the front of the church and were gently rubbing their flowers at the base of a giant picture of the Virgin Mother holding her infant, Jesus. They were grounding their prayer by projecting their anima-animus on to Mary and Jesus.
O’Meara’s second model of Jung’s Marian analysis is the “mother-archetype”—Mary is the “mother” who brings qualities which transcend reason, fertility, and rebirth. Jung explains that here mankind is not to be destroyed but saved through the God-man Jesus, born of Mary. In this the Second Adam is to be seen as born of a human woman. “So, this time priority falls to the second Eve, not only in a temporal sense but in a material sense as well . . . Thus Mary, the virgin, is chosen as the pure vessel for the coming birth of God.” Accordingly, Mary is the one who restores order while bestowing new beginnings to the human situation. She reverses the fall of our first parents and becomes the New Eve.
In his living room before his death, Jung had a huge painting of the Nativity showing just how much he respected and venerated Christian tradition.
Jung’s third Marian archetype involves the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Here, Mary is viewed not in opposition to the Trinity but according to the psychological sense of wholeness best depicted in medieval iconography representing her as Theotokos whereby there evolved a quaternity symbolized in the representation of the crowning of the Blessed Virgin as Queen of Heaven. Mary—defined as Theotokos shortly after the Council of Chalcedon in 451 C.E.—is viewed in union with the Church in its defense against those who would question the divinity of her son, Jesus. He sees this later development of Marian typology coming from a need to place “evil” as well as the “feminine” in relation to the godhead. Evil must come under God’s dominion otherwise God could not be all in all. By examining medieval paintings Jung realized that in a number of instances Mary was placed in relation to the divine figures of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, bringing to completion missing feminine aspects within the Trinity.
This leads us to Jung’s fourth model having to do with the assumption of Mary into heaven.
O’Meara notes that the papal declaration of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary—Munificentissimus Deus (1950)—for Jung was “the unconscious tradition and destiny of Catholicism.”
The doctrine of Mary’s Assumption into heaven has existed since early beginnings and has always been part and parcel of the Catholic landscape, acquiring renewed significance on November 1950 when proclaimed as infallible dogma by Pius XII. The dogma states that Mary was preserved from original sin and was taken up to the glory of heaven where, she now sits at the right hand of her Son. After hearing about this new papal definition Jung concluded that Mary’s divinity may now “be regarded as a tacit conclusion probabilis, and so too may the worship or adoration to which she is entitled.” Her role was enhanced as forever being with divinity in the sense that the feminine is now included in the metaphysical realm just as the masculine is through Jesus.
In conclusion it must that Jung cherished several aspects of the Christian tradition so much so that at one time he wrote:
I thank God every day that I have been permitted to experience the reality of the imago Dei in me. Had that not been so, I would be a bitter enemy of Christianity and of the Church in particular. Thanks to this actus gratiae my life has meaning, and my inner eye was opened to the beauty and grandeur of dogma.
Section IV
Conclusion
In conclusion, Jung’s take on dogma was at odds with Hitler’s who in October 1941 stated that the,
best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble” — [more on this below].
In my next few chapters I investigate some of the history that lay behind Marian dogmatics.