Fieldnotes from a Depth Psychological Exploration of Evil

From Chinggis Khan to Carl Jung

Robin L. Gordon

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351128568
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Mental Health in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

In Fieldnotes from a Depth Psychological Exploration of Evil, Robin L. Gordon presents an accessible account of an attempt to define and understand the nature of evil. Gordon takes on the role of guide to this confusing land, tying together threads of Jungian theory, philosophy, etymology, neuroscience and history, as we are led on a personal journey of discovery.

Gordon begins by analysing what a twelfth-century meeting between Chinggis Khan and Taoist priest Ch'ang-Ch'un can tell us about the presence of opposing traits and the nature of evil in human beings. We learn what depth psychology has said about evil and the shadow part of our psyches, and examine examples of human behaviour throughout history to understand the etymological, philosophical and historical understandings and definitions of evil. Gordon's own relationship with her work, and the feelings that arise when researching the psychological framework of Nazi doctors, genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia and Syria, and the functionality of serial killers, are interrogated. We then return to Chinggis Khan's and Ch'ang-Ch'un's relationship, attempting to build a real and practical definition of "evil", and assessing their dialogues as a metaphor for Jung's views of the transcendent function.

Fieldnotes from a Depth Psychological Exploration of Evil will be essential reading for academics and students of Jungian and post-Jungian studies, sociology, criminology and philosophy. It will also be a key resource for Jungian analysts and psychotherapists interested in the study of evil and its impact on society and the psyche, as well as anyone investigating and redefining their own meanings of evil, past and present.

1

The Journey Emerges

In the midst of researching Chinese alchemy for another project, I came across a remarkable story concerning Chinggis Khan (1162–1227 ce), commonly known as Genghis Khan,¹ and his meeting with a Taoist priest, Ch’ang-Ch’un (1148–1227 ce) in the year 1222 ce.² Exploring this story revealed that as well as being a brutal warrior, Chinggis Khan was quite spiritual and at around the age of 60 years, over a period of approximately 1 year, carried on several dialogues with the older priest. The nature of the dialogues will be discussed in depth in a subsequent chapter; however, the following exchange is an example of what drew me to investigate their story.

January 1223 ce: A question posed by Chinggis Khan to Ch’ang-Ch’un, a Taoist priest.

CHINGGIS KHAN: What is the reason for “calamities such as earthquakes, thunder and so on?”

CH’ANG-CH’UN: I have heard that in order to avoid the wrath of Heaven you [Chinggis Khan] forbid your countrymen to bathe in rivers during the summer, wash their clothes, make fresh felt or gather mushrooms in the fields. But this is not the way to serve Heaven. It is said that of the three thousand sins the worst is ill treatment of one’s father and mother. Now in this respect I believe your subjects to be gravely at fault and it would be well if your Majesty would use your influence to reform them. This pleased the Khan and he said: “Holy Immortal, your words are exceedingly true; such is indeed my own belief,” and he bade those who were present write them down in Uighur characters.³

That people are capable of demonstrating seemingly opposite traits such as being a ruthless conqueror as well as honoring a devout spiritual practice, has been explored by depth psychologists such as C.G. Jung, Marie-Louise Von Franz, Lionel Corbett, and James Hillman, to name a few. Despite my own work in depth psychology in which I was well versed regarding the complexities of psyche, I was perplexed. As I attempted to make sense of the reality of who Chinggis Khan was, I found myself bumping against the idea of evil in light of the terror and killing he wrought. This work became especially pertinent to me considering I was also struggling to understand overwhelming current problems such as the Trump phenomenon, rampant homelessness in wealthy countries, the horror of human trafficking, the need for ongoing dialogue and healing regarding the history of slavery in the United States, the persistent climate of misogyny, and the seemingly deliberate and uncaring damage to our planet. In my lower moments, I felt as if the world had become significantly unbalanced toward the side of evil.

My questions regarding the nature of evil also included answering why several rather ordinary young people have been not only attracted to terrorist groups, but have participated in brutal killings.⁴ Likewise, how can Saydnaya prison in Syria, known for egregious atrocities and genocide, exist in 2018?⁵ Genocide is not relegated solely to the early history of humankind but occurs in the present. Rwanda, Srebrenica (Bosnia), and Syria are stark reminders of societies mired in evil and chaos.⁶ I found myself compelled to look at the nature of evil.

J.B. Russell considers evil to be more pervasive than that suffered by humans, but something experienced by all living things. For example, he asks whether trees suffer when they are ripped from the ground and argues the Judeo-Christian idea of the world being given to man has led to the profound exploitation of our planet.⁷ Pope Francis wrote eloquently on the need for changing humankind’s relationship with our planet in his 2015 Encyclical, Laudato Si.⁸

In the words of this beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us … This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor; she “groans in travail” (Rom 8:22). We have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the earth (cf. Gen 2:7); our very bodies are made up of her elements, we breathe her air and we receive life and refreshment from her waters. … Nothing in this world is indifferent to us.⁹

Pope Francis is pointed as he writes, “These situations have caused sister earth, along with all the abandoned of our world, to cry out, pleading that we take another course.”¹⁰ C.G. Jung echoes this lament when he wrote about the ongoing development of consciousness alongside humankind’s increasingly inflated ego.

At the end of the second millennium the outlines of a universal catastrophe became apparent, at first in the form of a threat to consciousness. This threat consists in giantism—in other words, a hubris of consciousness—in the assertion: ‘Nothing is greater than man and his deeds.’¹¹

Jung lists instances of evil that are shared by many in modern times, a stressful litany of the horrors wrought by the human species, similar to what I noted above. Yet, Jung also warns us that in order to manage evil, we must take care to avoid thinking of good and evil as “absolute opposites,”¹² meaning terms that can be defined with no ambiguity. Throughout this book we will see that taking a black and white stance regarding our thinking about evil is far too simplistic.

In this introductory chapter, I explain how the Chinggis Khan story triggered my research into evil. I also include a few biographical notes concerning Khan’s life to provide historical context. Finally, I outline and discuss the way I went about my attempt to understand evil. I wondered how I might make sense of evil perpetrated by our ancestors hoping those events were relegated to ancient history, but knowing differently. It seems modern humankind is heading in such a destructive direction that blaming evil on a stereotype of unenlightened ancestors was not valid. My initial questions regarding the Ch’ang-Ch’un–Chinggis Khan dialogues were stirring up much more than I had expected. What emerged is that my exploration about the dialogues was going to require much deeper research if I hoped to be able to answer my questions satisfactorily. Therefore, before beginning my investigation into the nature of evil, it was important to place the story of Chinggis Khan in context. The following is not an extensive history but a brief introduction that provides some insight into the protagonists as well as their cultural background.

Chinggis Khan: a devastating conqueror emerges

In order to better understand Chinggis Khan, a brief biographical narrative sheds light on his later actions. It is derived from a translation of the historical narrative by Francis Woodman Cleaves titled, The Secret History of the Mongols: For the First Time Done into English Out of the Original Tongue.¹³ The History was written about two years after Khan’s death and followed a circuitous route to finally being translated into English. Joseph Fletcher’s and Jack Weatherford’s works on Mongol culture have also been vital for trying to understand Chinggis Khan’s and Ch’ang-Ch’un’s place in history.¹⁴

Chinggis Khan began life with the name Temüǰin in the year 1162 ce. That Thomas à Becket became the Archbishop of Canterbury the same year may help the reader place this event in the context of Western medieval history. Temüǰin (Chinggis Khan) was named after a fierce warrior who had been defeated in battle by his father, Yesügei Ba’atur.¹⁵ When he was nine years old, Temüǰin and his father traveled to cement his betrothal to a girl from another family. Along the way, father and son met one of their own family members who told Yesügei Ba’atur that he had dreamt of a white gyrfalcon who held the sun and moon in his talons.¹⁶ This appeared to be a good omen for the betrothal to Börte (ten years old) who was said to have been a maiden, “With light in her face, with fire in her eyes”¹⁷ which at a later time, was the same description her own father applied to Temüǰin who was left behind to live with Börte’s family. Although it was expected that someone of Temüǰin’s age could be left with a new family, Yesügei Ba’atur requested that the prospective father-in-law, Dei Sečen, would guard Temüǰin from dogs which frightened the young boy.

In an act of hubris, while traveling home from Börte’s family, Yesügei Ba’atur came upon Tatar people celebrating a feast. As it turned out, the people were those whom he had earlier “spoiled”¹⁸ (raided). Nevertheless, Yesügei Ba’atur asked for food and drink which they were happy to provide, although in a not so subtle act of revenge, his food was also poisoned. Arriving home close to death, Yesügei Ba’atur sent a message for Temüǰin to return home and then he subsequently died. Upon Yesügei Ba’atur’s death his wife, Hö’elün Üǰin, was shunned by the community which may have been a way to diminish the potential leadership of her sons. The family were basically abandoned and left behind, something that would haunt Temüǰin throughout his life. An elderly man, Old Man Čaraqa tried to intervene with the tribe but was literally stabbed in the back with a spear. The relationship between Temüǰin and Old Man Čaraqa is unclear in the History but his death is reported to have devastated Temüǰin. However, the family was able to navigate tribal life and Temüǰin thrived as he grew into the future legendary warrior.

As an adolescent, and no stranger to violence, the History records that two older brothers stole a fish from Temüǰin and another brother, Qasar. The two boys complained to their mother, Hö’elün Üǰin, who admonished all the brothers, invoking the negative consequences of past incidents when families did not remain loyal to each other; family ties were critical in Mongol culture. An anecdote that Chinggis Khan related to his own sons many years later illustrates this. The story was passed down through the family where it was said a mother gathered her five sons and handed them each one arrow. She ordered them to break the arrow in half. This was done easily. She then gave them each five arrows with the same direction to break them except in this case, the arrows were bundled together which made the task impossible. The lesson was clear regarding strength in numbers and the need to be loyal to the family unit.

Regarding the stolen fish, Temüǰin and Qasar did not listen to their mother or heed her wisdom. They prepared to ambush their older brother, Begter, who upon becoming aware of the two boys, admonished them, but to no avail. Temüǰin and Qasar shot their brother with arrows and killed him. Hö’elün Üǰin was furious and shouted at them that they had destroyed the very thing that could keep the family strong, a united front. She used a Mongol saying: “Ye have no companion other than [your] shadow; Ye have no whip other than a tail.”¹⁹ Isolation from one’s family or tribe in nomadic culture, especially living in the harsh conditions on the Steppe, could result in death. The History states, “she [Hö’elün] was exceedingly displeased with her sons.”²⁰ Thus, we begin to gain some understanding about the character of this future Mongol ruler.

The Mongol spiritual tradition traces far back in history but was directly related to earlier steppe tribes such as the Tatars, Uighurs, and the Huns.²¹ Several steppe tribes left records of their history carved into hundreds of stones scattered throughout the land. The oldest carvings were of animals and people; written language came later. Weatherford argues that Temüǰin would have been familiar with the messages left on the stones, analyzed their...