Share your thoughts!
In September the Asheville Jung Center has ambitious plans to host a conference titled “Symbols and Individuation in Global Politics”. In preparation, I’ve been reading Anyaten Sen’s “Identity and Violence”, Ortega y Gassett, and a panel discussion by Singer, Meador, and Samuels (Panel: The transcendent function in society) from the April 2010 issue of Journal of Analytical Psychology. It is a thought provoking article.
Let me begin with a question. Do Jungians and the field of Analytical Psychology have something unique to offer in the arena of politics, political science, and political discourse? Of course, Jungians are entitled, indeed obligated, to participate in the political process. But is there a Jungian perspective on these matters?
Singer, Meador, and Samuels examined the transcendent function and specifically explore the proposition that certain individuals (for example, President Obama) carry the transcendent function in ways that may promote resolution of cultural complexes. Such figures may help society unify apparent opposites.
The transcendent function is that psychological mechanism through which apparent opposites are unified. Jung compared the transcendent function to its mathematical equivalent:
“There is nothing mysterious or metaphysical about the term “transcendent function.” it means a psychological function comparable in it’s way to a mathematical function[1] of the same name, which is a function of real and imaginary numbers. The psychological “transcendent function” arises from the union of conscious and unconscious content.” (The Transcendent Function, Jung 1959)
Individuals tend to identify with one aspect of a polarity while relegating the other aspect to the unconscious. The transcendent function is at work when the individual reconciles such opposing elements in their psyche. There is a distinguished history of transcendent function within political theory. Hegel’s dialectical approach proposed a such a motor of history and politics that consisted of an endless clash of opposites resolved by a synthesis. His use of the word aufhebung, often translated as sublated, connotes abolished, preserved, and transcended in a single word. Hegel may have intended to ambiguate the idea. This is reminiscent of Jung’s characterization of symbol as “the best possible expression for a complex fact not yet clearly apprehended by consciousness.”
During the election cycle of 2008 there appeared to be a collective stirring of such dialectal tensions. There seemed to be opposing forces marshaling everywhere. There were rabid gun rights advocates who seemed to feel they were under siege and liberal activists who vilified the previous administration as a reign of terror worth of epic tales like “Lord of the Rings” or “Star Wars”. Countless other examples could be cited of seemingly deep rifts that were more evident during the 2008 election season. An unlikely figure, Barack Obama, emerged from this milieu and galvanized people across the political spectrum. Thomas Singer opined that President Obama “…has the potential to embody in his being a transcendent function that might point to real reconciliation and healing of the entrenched cultural complexes that divide Black and White communities in America… Some gifted individuals …actually carry the transcendent function for the group…” (Singer 2006, pp. 26-27)
There is little doubt that Barack Obama demonstrates the capacity to arouse strong passion. He resonates with people from different countries and cultures. People are drawn to him. Celebrity accounts for some of this allure. When President Obama visited Asheville earlier this year, even his ardent detractors were caught up in the excitement about sightings around town. His celebrity seemed to dampen the usual fiery discourse seeming to unify opposing parties. However, this should not be confused with reconciliation or the exercise of the transcendent function.
There may something useful in considering leaders like President Obama as carriers of the transcendent function since this serves to remind us of the enormous value of transcending any opposites, whether intra-psychic or within the crucible of socio-cultural differences. But there are other reasons for caution.
Displacing individual psychological functions onto persons like Obama are a form of infantile wish fulfillment of the sort Freud exposed in “The Future of an Illusion”. Individuation is personal, as is the transcendent function that supports it. Extrapolating to the realm of politics imperils the individuation process. Psychological contents that we project, especially upon charismatic leaders like Obama, are robbed of some of their energy. This can reduce the chances that they will break through to consciousness. Cultural complexes are not exempt from such obfuscating maneuvers. The individual is summoned to use the transcendent function as a vehicle for perpetual growth and adaptation.
Logicians might object to the idea of leaders carrying the transcendent function because it reflects an error of logical type. A classic example of such an error may be helpful.
“This statement is false.”
(If the statement is true, it is false, and if it is false, then it is true, and so on.)
Such paradoxes are resolved by recognizing that the actual truth value of the statement is of a different logical type than the statement itself.
A similar disquiet emerges from the effort to extrapolate a function of the individual psyche (the transcendent function) to the sociopolitical arena. The truth and explanatory power of the transcendent function when applied to the individual is different than when it is applied to the polis. The two are of different logical types. (see Russell & Whitehead or Bateson).
Whether or not President Obama carries the transcendent function for cultural complexes he clearly activates psychological elements for individuals and for the masses. It is an intriguing idea to consider what role figures such as Obama play for society at large and individuals in their own political (& psychological) development
We are eager to generate discussion about the symbols and and other topics related to global politics as we approach the September conference. What do you think about the proposition that President Obama carries the transcendent function for various cultural complexes? We encourage you to share your thoughts concerning what (if anything) Jungians have to offer politics and political science.
Len Cruz
[1] For an infinite series a1 + a2 + a3 +⋯, a quantity sn = a1 + a2 +⋯+ an, which involves adding only the first n terms, is called a partial sum of the series. If sn approaches a fixed number S as n becomes larger and larger, the series is said to converge. In this case, S is called the sum of the series. An infinite series that does not converge is said to diverge. In the case of divergence, no value of a sum is assigned. An example of a convergent series is 1 + ½ + ¼ + ⅛ … that converges upon the solution 2.
I think this is an excellent idea for a conference. I have been interested in the Transcendent Function for many years and have experienced it in what Jung refers to as the Big Dream. It excites me to learn that your Jungian Community is embarking on such a venture to find a way to reconcile the opposites in our society and culture. I would like to know more of what your program will be focusing on in this regard. We Jungian therapists tend to look at the the Transcendent Function in terms of our spiritual growth and evolution, which of course is of great value to each of us individually from an inner perspective. Now let us turn our attention to the collective world at large for answers on this vital and meaningful theme.
Thea Ann Soroyan LMFT
T
A Jungian spin on the oil spill.
UP THROUGH THE GROUND
came a’bubblin’ crude – OIL, that is, Black Gold, Texas Tea!
That was in the 1960’s. Times have changed . It ain’t funny any more. We have gotten a message from the deep, and it is BLACK and seemingly autonomous, uncontrollable.
Where are our smarts now? Can we really ignore this message, this perhaps final warning? Is it not clearly long past time we ended our love affair with crude? How long can we deny that Black Gold has become Black Death? Not just as a general, planetary source of pollution, not just a drain on our national economy, not just a treacherous indenture to those in the Middle East who gladly take our money and keep us in servitude, but as an ominous threat to our immediate environment, even to our existence.
This obvious metaphor for our persistent ignorance and refusal to face down the misguided leadership – corporate and governmental – which has inevitably brought about the rising up of natural forces in protest of our foolishness, will be further pushed aside at our own critical risk.
Carl Jung, in the early part of the last century, tried to warn humanity of the dangerous consequences that follow the headlong pursuit of false and ill-considered goals powered by the short-sighted interests of personal gain. He tried to warn us that failure to deal with our individual “darkness”, or in his terms, our Shadow, would inevitably result in an eventual eruption of our collective Shadow. Such an eruption has occurred, not once, but numerous times in the years of our blind addiction to oil.
“Dark matter” in space may or may not be a threat to us on planet Earth, but we are faced with the undeniable self-inflicted threat of the “dark matter” we are pumping from the interior depths of our home.
[304 words]
jcb:6/6/10
The paper states,
“Let me begin with a question. Do Jungians and the field of Analytical Psychology have something unique to offer in the arena of politics, political science, and political discourse? Of course, Jungians are entitled, indeed obligated, to participate in the political process. But is there a Jungian perspective on these matters?”
I say that someone identifying themselves as a “Jungian” does not guarantee that the individual carries a particular set of beliefs, clearly defined models, processes, terms, or concepts. Nor is this a guarantee that they then can observe, judge, form clear opinions and express themselves as a result. There is considerable evidence in publications and on the internet to show that there are many who call themselves “Jungians” who have actually read very little Jung at all and perhaps even misunderstood what they’ve read. However, if one actually studied Jung’s works there may be some set of commonly held understandings or beliefs in the individual Jungian — but I don’t believe this should be relied upon. After all, preparation to be a qualified Jungian analyst is directed at clinical training and not the application of Jung’s models, concepts, and ideas to acquire an understanding sufficient for in-depth philosophical discussion.
One outstanding difference between those who actually studied Jung and those who haven’t is the Jungian’s attitude toward the individual and their holding of the term as central to their philosophy while others prefer to view the object or subject from the perspective of a statistically defined representative of the masses, that entity that never actually exists. The perspective — that is the viewing of the object or subject from the perspective of the individual as opposed to the average is dramatically different. Expressing this to a world of behaviorists can make for an interesting challenge.
The paper stated, “Individuals tend to identify with one aspect of a polarity while relegating the other aspect to the unconscious” I believe mistakenly implies an individual is consciously engaged in that process. While the author may not have meant this, I believe it is important to convey that the process is an unconscious one and not one directed by an indvidual’s will.
Lastly I’d like to say that the works of John Steinbeck, a Jungian from his on-and-off again classes at Stanford, (~1922) evidences his considerable knowledge of the application of the transcendent function. Works like “In Dubious Battle”, “East of Eden” and others include good examples. His concept of the “phalanx” is particularly significant to consider. The concept was locked up for him in his joining of the gatherings in Cannery Row’s “Doc’s Lab” with Ed Ricketts, Joseph Campbell, Henry Miller, and others. From his youth he kept a cigar box within which he put little notes to record his observations. He stated that it was in those meetings on the Row that many of the apparently random notes came together for him. While Steinbeck’s novels were very entertaining reading (for me anyhow), he really was a reporter who wrote in the form of a novelist.
Respectfully.
Wes Stillwagon
Lillington, North Carolina, USA
Well, they did call him The One. But it is interesting that he follows GWB – the Great Divider. Yet BHO too seems to elicit similar divisions. The Tea Party happened on his watch.
I would say that BHO constellated a collective hope for transcendence, but is not that in practice.
I’m intrigued by identifying Obama with the transcendent function, but also wary of a facile application of that term. While it is clear that he became a symbol of unification of opposites very quickly, Rich and Poor, Black and White, Muslim and Christian, Poorest continent and Richest continent.
But Obama’s annointing with that symbolism only set off the projections of large groups, ethnicities and nations worldwide. The work of consciousness raising, namely that these opposites ARE mass projections, will not be done automatically by those who make the projections. Neither is the process of their unification a natural result of opposites coming into consciousness in the same people without a passionate commitment to one side and/or against the other side of an opposite.
Do we expect Obama to be The One, and actually do or model this work of unification FOR us, and before our very eyes? He may be learned, quick-witted, sly, and hungry for a significance he too recognizes in the imaginal realm–but to succeed at becoming the political transcendent function, might he not be imagiining he can be an archetypal savior and a mere mortal at the same time? Jung’s years of active imagination, where he risked psychosis, were introverted, and expecting a political redemption through an extraverted transcendence process might be as unrealistic as concretizing the Second Coming.
On the other hand, perhaps we who are ignited by this Jungian Redeemer projection might serve its realization in the run-up to the Sept. 10 seminar by dreaming and visiting in active imagination those sociopolitical opposites in ourselves: Rich and Poor, Republican and Democrat, Americanist Modernizer-extravert and MiddleEastern Medievalizer-spiritualist (aptly typified in Rumi’s poem A Man and a Woman Arguing in the classic Barks collection The Essential Rumi), World Moral policeman and Enemy terrorist, etc.
Perhaps if some of us do that, or even just invite each shadow figure who appears in our dreams in to a no-thoughts-barred conversation with ourselves, we might do some of the integration within that we’ve imagined Obama will do on the world stage. Individuation is supposed to be an introverted process, so it would make sense to join in if we project Obama to manifest it outside.
One more politically partisan thought: In accord with George Lakoff’s Moral Politics categories, I’ve found out in a dream, late Sept 2001, that Republicans set out to do & care for just one segment of the people, while Democrats expect to do & care for everyone. Thus Republicans gain tremendous emotional energy from the Us and Them dichotomies and oppositions (eg. their “wedge issues”), while Democrats can’t muster comparable passions for We are all One Family, One World–because negative emotions of fear and anger outshout the positive emotions by themselves. Republicans highlight the opposites and push for one and against the other. But Democrats seem to assume that all we need to do is integrate them. That’s sharp “pragmatic” awareness of the opposites vs blissful idealism. So perhaps we shouldn’t just fault Obama without first drawing up a seat with the Republican and/or Democrat within ourselves.