3
INDIVIDUATION, COMMUNITY AND THE ART OF LIFE
Running Head: Individuation, Community
David Johnston
ABSTRACT
In this paper I compare and contrast Jung’s view of the individuation process with regard to the individual’s role in the community and other Jungian influenced writers. I argue that Jung’s appreciation along with von Franz’s, is more all-inclusive than that of the other writers. It allows for both acceptance of the world as it is and its potential transformation through creative individuals. Stein also makes some interesting observations on the dynamics involved in an individual’s relationship to the community and individuation.
INDIVIDUATION, COMMUNITY AND THE ART OF LIFE
Introduction
My interest in individuation and its relationship with the community is born out of my own personal experiences and struggles with this question. The art of life, as I define it, has to do with being consciously involved in the individuation process, while being fully engaged in the normal duties of life in the community. As part of the title, it peripherally refers to the fact that I am an artist, and that, in addition to attending to dreams, art is a vehicle for me for increasing consciousness.
The Individuation Process and its Significance
In his voluminous writings, Jung (1974) provides a considerable glimpse into the nature of the individuation process. Significantly, he draws a sharp contrast between individuation and individualism. He argues that whereas individualism means the development of supposedly unique properties of the ego, individuation refers to a more complete expression of collective qualities. Moreover, while individualism has to do with self-interest and ego-fulfillment, individuation refers to the unfolding of the Self over space and time, where the Self refers to one’s wholeness, which includes both conscious and unconscious aspects of the psyche.
In addition, individuation relates one to the community and defines one’s role there. For, as Jung has observes, the Self is as much other Selves as is one’s Self and the ego, and it follows that in order for the Self to be fulfilled in time, there must be an intimate connection with others. In Jung’s words, “If a man is capable of leading a responsible life himself, then he is also conscious of his duties to the community” (p. 163). Individuation, accordingly, necessitates an intimate interrelationship between the individual and the community. With individualism, in contrast, there is always an effective separation between the ego with its self-interest and others. Even individualism modified with social interest, Adler’s (1979) solution, is ultimately an alienating psychology, based as it is on the ego and not the all-inclusive Self.
Not only Jung but many of his disciples have also written about the individuation process. Moreover, Jung’s writings are a marvellous testimony to his own process, which manifestly involved a direct encounter with the collective psyche, the psyche of the Western collective community, if not the world community. In Jung’s case, it is not simply a question of viewing the world as an intractable seat of evil like some of the early Gnostics, but of intimately relating with it for its potential transformation. Although Jung’s writings are full of suggestions that something like that is eventually necessary for conscious individuation, the crooked path of truth, one finds little if any direct examples, outside of himself, referred to in his writings or in the writings of his disciples.
Nonetheless, in Mysterium Coniunctionis, Jung (1970) alludes to the fact that there are essentially three phases in the individuation process. The first phase is what he calls the unio mentalis, which involves a broad mental understanding of what is involved in individuation, and requiring a transformation of the intellect, including beliefs, values and attitudes. In the second stage, there is the need for the embodiment of insights, which means that they have an effect on one’s conduct in life. This involves a transformation of the vital or life principle, eventually at an instinctive or vital-physical and psychosomatic level and even the physical itself. The farther reaches of the first two levels of transformation requires some realization of the Self behind the heart, the integrative centre of being, as well as the individual Self above the mind, what is known in Hindu thought as the individual atman.
In the third phase, according to Jung, one becomes conscious of a connection made between the individual atman (Self) and the universal atman (Self) as well as realization of the unus mundus or one world. In addition to a spiritual transformation per se, this can be taken to mean or to include a deepening conscious relationship between the ego and the archetypes of the collective unconscious, a universalization and deepening of meaning beyond the individual. In effect, when this takes place, individual experiences of synchronicity multiply, and the nature of the task that is being imposed on the individual by the Self, which includes a transformation in one’s relationship with the collective psyche or the community and its values, becomes apparent. Patrizia Norelli-Bachlet (1981) observes that it is now possible to consciously participate in the incarnation of a new world.
Jung writes that “resistance to the organized mass can be effected only by the man who is as well organized in his individuality as the mass itself” (p. 158). He also observes that at a certain point in analysis “the apparently individual conflict of the patient is revealed as a universal conflict of his environment and epoch” (p. 150). He also notes that the “great organization is a monstrosity that destroys individuality” (p. 166). Given these reflections and the massive influence of large organization on people’s lives today, many contemporary individuals need to come to terms with this reality in their individuation process. Indeed, these comments suggest that it is unavoidable for a consciously individuating individual to not need to eventually come to terms with the contemporary socially-constructed reality, which is becoming increasingly problematic.
With little exception, however, Jungian oriented literature, gives no examples of the effect of encounters with collective organizations and their values as an aspect of the individuation process. There are many examples of people reorganizing their lives and improving their position at work or in relationship. But how the individual interacts with collective organizations or the community and the significance to individuation is rarely explored. My own experience suggests that, from the point of view of individuation, what is most important is the gain in self-knowledge for the individual while the organization itself may be relatively unaffected. In the process, there is a deepening Eros connectedness with others and the community, which may not be so evident to others. In the long run, the individuals may also feel the ethical need to somehow pass on their insight to others and, in some cases, find a more suitable field of expressions in line with a growing sense of wholeness.
Individuation and Community
What follows is a brief outline of different views on the individuation process in relationship to the community and the collective organization held by Jung and several psychologists influenced by him:
Jung, von Franz
Jung (1974) observes that individuation entails alienation from others as it demands detachment from collective attitudes and opinions. However, he also makes ample references to the need to develop eros or connectedness in individuation, indicating that there continues to be relationship to the community although at a deeper level. Marie Louise von Franz (1975), who follows Jung closely, argues that, with conscious individuation, relationships are progressively organized by the Self and not one’s natural family, and come from all walks of society. This is reminiscent of Christ’s dictum that his disciples are to take up their swords, leave their families and follow him. A symbolic reading suggests that a new family is being formed through Christ, which is to say the Self.
Jung (as reported in Hannah, 1976), also advises his disciples to follow the way of “the Rainmaker,” referring to a true story told him by Richard Wilhelm. In it, a little old man first subjected himself to the prevailing destructive conditions then put himself in Tao, which resulted in precipitation. The moral of the story is that by consciously searching and attaining inner harmony and knowledge, in the face of conflicted external conditions, things happen as they should in one’s relationship to others and the community. Transformation of the community comes through individuals being creatively involved in the individuation process.
Hillman/Mindell
Jung seems to make good sense. But in a recent interview, James Hillman (as reported by Safransky, 1991), speaks of what he called the “Rainmaker Fallacy.” He argues that therapists, including, if not especially Jungian analysts, have remained introverted in their consulting room, analysands have become more sensitive, etc, but there has been virtually no effect on the collective psyche and collective organizations. More recently, in a book co-authored by Michael Ventura, he observes that, “We’ve had a hundred years of psycho-therapy and the world in getting worse” (Hillman, Ventura, 1992), the title of their book. He concludes that therapy must somehow embrace what he refers to as the world soul. Analysis, he argues, has been too individualistic and not enough concerned with the soul in the world, which is disintegrating.
Arnie Mindell (1989) seems to have come to somewhat the same conclusion as he reported in his book, The Year I - Global Process Work. There, he discusses innovative ways of working in the world and perceiving the world. It involves group psychology and perception of what he calls the group, or world dream body, which is largely unconscious. Essentially, he argues for the need to bring it more into personal awareness. He also argues that individuation today must include working with this dimension of the psyche.
Both Hillman and Mindell seem to have roughly the same message. There is, they suggest, a need for therapy and individuation to include the world. In Hillman’s case this involves re-imagining the world, while in Mindell’s case it means becoming more conscious of the demands of the cultural unconscious as expressed through what he refers to as the group and world dream body. In the process, they are asking for therapy to be defined less individualistically and more communally. Mary Watkins also sees the need for defining the psyche less individualistically in her plea for an interdependent self, that is to say a sense of identity which includes others. She puts emphasis on acknowledging the impact, often negative, of the present individualistic culture on the individual.
Poncé
Another Jungian influenced psychologist, Charles Poncé (1990) takes a similar view as Watkins in that he sees the present socially-constructed reality as neurotic and one-sided. But in contrast to her, he emphasises that the individual needs to be liberated from its all-powerful grip to the extent possible. Rather than seeking more community, he emphasizes that, however limited, release from attachment to the socially-constructed reality, which he sees as an expression of the archetypes defined simply as modification of the instincts, liberates the individual to express more “will to become.” In fact Poncé’s view is somewhat similar to that of Erich Fromm (1968), although in place of the unrestrained “will to become” the latter recommends enlightened reason.
Although Hillman, Mindell and Watkins, particularly Hillman and Mindell, make interesting observations on how society and organizations can integrate influences from the imaginal world and the collective unconscious, in themselves, their insights are not specifically related to the individual’s individuation process per se. From the individual’s perspective, there is even the risk of accepting a position that can be characterized as being too much oriented outwardly, too collective, one roughly equivalent to that of Alfred Adler (1979) and his need for developing social interest. In contrast, although Poncé’s position can be designated as an intensive search for truth, ignoring or relativising the collective and relationship to the community invites the risk of encouraging too much ego-individualism. In comparison, Jung’s notion of the individuation process, which is dependant on a transformative Self, synthesizes both views in a creative way.
Stein
In an interesting article in “Psychological Perspectives,” Murray Stein takes an essentially classical Jungian position in arguing that the Self needs relationship and involvement with the collective organization in order to come into consciousness. He contends that the organization is representative of the Great Mother Archetype in both its beneficent and devouring aspects. He argues that the individual is in participation mystique with the organization, and that the individuation process eventually leads to dissolution of this unconscious involvement and a more objective relationship with it.
Stein contends that the work group provides a living metaphor for the original parental presence, with the individual unconsciously choosing a particular organization in order to repeat early patterns of behavior. Individuals, accordingly, experience the same dynamics as earlier, although at a different point on the spiral and an increase in consciousness. Dissolution of the projective identification may or may not end in changing jobs, business partnerships, family, etc., he argues. Of ultimate importance, observes Stein, is that one’s role in the organizational life be infused with archetypal energies in order for it to carry personal value and meaning. Therefore, even after dissolving one’s participation mystique with the organization, in his view, one’s activities there can still be meaningful.