Childhood Re-imagined

Images and Narratives of Development in Analytical Psychology

Shiho Main

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2008
• Print ISBN: 9780415384957
• eBook ISBN: 9781134173709
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Developmental Psychology
• Index: Psychology

What can Jungian psychology contribute to understanding children and childhood?

Childhood Re-imagined considers Carl Jung's psychological approach to childhood and argues that his symbolic view deserves a place between the more traditional scientific and social-constructionist views of development. Divided into four sections this book covers:

• Jung on development
• theoretical and methodological discussion
• the Developmental School of analytical psychology
• towards a Jungian developmental psychology.

This book discusses how Jung's view of development in terms of individuation is relevant to child development, particularly the notion of regression and Jung's distinction between the child archetype and the actual child. It shows how Jung's understanding of the historically controversial notion of recapitulation differs from that of other psychologists of his time and aligns him with contemporary, post-modern critiques of development. The book goes on to investigate Fordham's notion of individuation in childhood, and the significance of this, together with Jung's approach, to Jungian developmental psychology and to wider interdisciplinary issues such as children's rights. Main also examines the plausibility and usefulness of both Jung's and Fordham's approaches as forms of qualitative psychology.

Through its detailed scholarly examination of Jungian texts and concepts Childhood Re-imagined clarifies the notion of development used within analytical psychology and stimulates discussion of further connections between analytical psychology and other contemporary discourses. It will be of particular interest to those involved in analytical psychology, Jungian studies and childhood studies.

Part I
Jung on development

Chapter 1
Psychological development

The general idea of development is often associated with ‘progress’, ‘advancement’, and ‘betterment’. However, it is arguable whether and to what extent these images apply to Jung’s understanding of psychological development. This chapter first discusses Jung’s idea of psychological development, which he theorises as the ‘individuation process’, particularly in relation to his concept of the ‘self’. Next, it looks at the ways in which Jung describes development as outgrowing. Then it discusses whether he proposes other kinds of development specific to the unconscious. Finally, it considers Jung’s understanding of development in relation to his view of culture and discusses how his notion of cultural development has different implications from those of more general images of development.

The individuation process

Individuation is a vast topic to discuss in a single chapter, since it is related to many other complex issues in analytical psychology. Nevertheless, I shall discuss various implications of its role specifically as a developmental process, identifying some of the confusions involved in it.

Jung’s idea of development arises from his concern with the psychological meaning of life. Based on psychoanalytic and introspective observations of his own and others’ psychological processes, he came to the view that the lives of neurotic people often lack meaning, even though they may have attained what they were seeking outwardly. He argues that their neurotic symptoms will disappear if they can ‘develop into more spacious personalities’ ([1963] 1995, p. 162). He states: ‘For that reason the idea of development was always of the highest importance to me’ (ibid.). The kind of development he has in mind is also described by him as ‘to live the “symbolic life”’ (ibid., p. 163).

For readers not already familiar with Jung, his key concepts and where his perspectives come from might not seem straightforward. Jung’s theory of psychological development is based on his concepts of archetypes¹ and, in particular, the self.² These two concepts remain particularly controversial in terms of their definitions and applications; especially with regard to how Jung conceptualised them and how they could be understood in the light of theories and knowledge adopted from psychology and other academic disciplines. He proposes the concept of the collective unconscious (see, e.g., Jung 1936), a part of the psyche that is not personally or consciously acquired but inborn and universal. He distinguishes the collective unconscious from the personal unconscious, the latter of which largely consists of personal complexes that are related closely to the inferior functions of one’s personality and relationships with others in everyday life. Jung believed that there is a deeper layer of the psyche than the personal unconscious. Among many ways of describing archetypes, Jung himself sometimes writes that archetypes are the contents of the collective unconscious. Irrepresentable themselves, they nevertheless have the potential to form representations but can only be consciously perceived as images or patterns.³ Jung named some of these images: for instance, ‘persona’ for the superficial personality adapted to the external world or society; ‘shadow’ for the reflection of the negative aspects of oneself (usually represented as of one’s own sex); ‘anima’ and ‘animus’ for representations of the unknown contrasexual aspects of oneself (and therefore also of one’s inner world); the ‘wise old man’ for the existence of transcendent wisdom; and many others. Regarding the ‘self’, Jung states, among various explanations, that this is the final goal of the psyche. He says:

During those years, between 1918 to 1920, I began to understand that the goal of psychic development is the self. There is no linear evolution; there is only a circumambulation of the self. Uniform development exists, at most, only at the beginning; later, everything points towards the centre … I knew that in finding the mandala as an expression of the self I had attained what was for me the ultimate.

([1963] 1995, p. 222)

Jung says that in 1927 a dream brought confirmation of his ideas about the centre and the self (ibid.). He speaks of this dream and concludes with his understanding of the psychological meaning of life:

This dream brought with it a sense of finality. I saw that there the goal had been revealed. One could not go beyond the centre. The centre is the goal, and everything is directed towards the centre. Through this dream I understood that the self is the principle and archetype of orientation and meaning. Therein lies its healing function. For me, this insight signified an approach to the centre and therefore to the goal. Out of it emerged a first inkling of my personal myth.

(ibid., p. 224)

Jung reports that after this dream he gave up drawing or painting mandalas, as it enabled him to take an ‘objective view’ of the things that filled his being (ibid.). He attached great importance to his experience of pursuing his inner images. He writes:

It has taken me virtually forty-five years to distil within the vessel of my scientific work the things I experienced and wrote down at that time … The years when I was pursuing my inner images were the most important in my life – in them everything essential was decided. It all began then; the later details are only supplements and clarifications of the material that burst forth from the unconscious, and at first swamped me. It was the prima materia for a lifetime’s work.

(ibid., p. 225)

In one way, Jung’s theory of psychological development could be seen as largely the story of his own psychological experience of life and his search for his own development. However, implications of and insights which could be gained from his theory seem too rich to dismiss it as a mere reflection of his personal struggle with the psychological meaning of life.

Even though we do not go in detail or depth into Jung’s psychology as a whole but focus only on development, it is hard to avoid the complexities of his theorisation. His concept of ‘individuation’ is about ‘psychological development’. However, he speaks of ‘psychological development’ as ‘psychic development’ on the one hand (e.g., 1928a) and ‘development of personality’ on the other (e.g., 1934a). In one way, it could be understood that the former is concerned with the structure of the psyche and the latter with the functions of the psyche. The same confusion occurs regarding his concept of the self. On the one hand, the self is the totality of the psyche, including the conscious and the unconscious, and on the other hand, it is the wholeness of the personality (e.g., 1928c). Another confusion surrounds the concept of the self as the goal of individuation, for the self is presented both as the whole psyche which organises the archetypes and as one – albeit the ultimate – archetype which is organised in the whole psyche. However, as Colman suggests, this confusion may be solved by considering the self as the ‘process of the psyche’ and not as a structure, functions or contents of the psyche (2000, pp. 14–18). This understanding of Jung’s term ‘the self’, as a psychological process, may actually represent his understanding of psychological ‘development’. This reflects a general shift towards the view that the psyche cannot simply be divided into a structure and its functions. It leads us to consider the dynamics of the psyche as a whole.

Jung’s theory of the ‘individuation process’ can be understood in terms of a variety of dynamics. First, it may be understood as the process concerned with differentiation, recognition, and integration (e.g., Jung, 1945). In this process, one is to withdraw one’s projections so that one can recognise reality in the outside world, and then one has to integrate the projected archetypal images which emerged from the unconscious into consciousness. Put another way, one is to realise that the negative aspects of others which one sees are in fact the shadow of one’s own unconscious psyche: one is to accept this alien part of one’s psyche and to become aware of one’s own shadow side. This may also be described in terms of becoming an individual separated from the collective, or of differentiating consciousness from the unconscious. Second, the individuation process may be understood in terms of the compensation of opposites, maintaining the balance of the conscious and the unconscious, maintaining the balance of outer and inner adaptation, transformation of libido (progression/regression), or balancing superior/inferior functions (e.g., Jung, 1938/54, paras 187–98). Third, the individuation process may be understood in terms of birth or initiation; or as rebirth, creation of a third element, the transcendent function, or symbol formation (e.g., Jung 1940, paras 281–4). By this, two elements create a third element, which does not belong to the original two but is something new, like producing gold in an alchemical process. It may also be described as symbolisation or spiritualisation. Fourth, the individuation process may be understood as working towards achieving the totality of the psyche, achieving wholeness of personality, or as the process towards the centre (e.g., Jung, 1942/48, paras 286–95). This is often symbolised by a quarternity image, a circular figure, or a spiral, each of which represents either a container or a solution of the conflicts in the dynamics of the psyche.

Regarding the theoretical understanding of the ‘individuation process’, a question arises as to what kinds of psychological development are actually aimed at in Jungian analysis. It seems that various kinds of development overlap with the various aims of analysis. Jolande Jacobi sums up the different points of view on the individuation process, which refers, in her view, to ‘both the “natural” as well as the “methodically” or “analytically assisted” course of development’ (1965, p. 79). She distinguishes:

• 1

• (a) the ‘natural’ process which is the ordinary course of human life;
• (b) the ‘methodically’ or ‘analytically assisted’ process worked out by Jung.

• 2

• (a) a process experienced and worked out as an ‘individual way’;
• (b) an initiation resulting from participation in a collective event.

• 3

• (a) a gradual development consisting of many little transformations;
• (b) a sudden transformation brought about by a shattering experience.

• 4

• (a) a continuous development extending over the whole life-span;
• (b) a cyclic process constantly recurring in unchanged form.

• 5

• (a) a process in which only the first phase is accomplished;
• (b) a process in which both phases follow in sequence.

• 6

• (a) a process prematurely interrupted by outer or inner circumstances;
• (b) an undeveloped process remaining in atrophied form;
• (c) a ‘sick’ or ‘defective’ process.

(ibid.)

Overall, there would be no problem in calling the above process ‘development’ instead of ‘individuation’. The only difficult category would be group 6, which concerns what may be called regressiveness. I shall discuss regression more fully in the following chapter. Here it can just be noted that regressiveness too can be regarded teleologically as a chance for development in a new direction. In this respect, both the threat that regression pauses to development and the need for regression as part of the process of development are important for individuation. Different manifestations of the ‘individuation process’ are aimed at and observed in analysis, and, therefore, being synonymous with the ‘individuation process’, the ‘developmental process’ would vary in both Jungian theory and practice.

As we have seen above, the process of development does not have only one definition but can be viewed from different perspectives. It apparently does not simply consist of advancement within a hierarchy. Jung reached the conclusion that the goal of psychological development, the individuation process, is the self, and that this goal involves movement towards a centre. Nevertheless, within that developmental process so many dynamics are intermingled before reaching the goal, all of them integral parts of the developmental process, that they need to be incorporated in various ways into an overall understanding of development. From one point of view, Jung’s entire psychology can be presented, more precisely, as his developmental psychology.

Development as outgrowing

Jung also talks about development in terms of a person outgrowing himself or herself in the course of analysis. Jung writes: ‘Now and then it happened in my practice that a patient grew beyond himself because of unknown potentialities, and this became an experience of prime importance to me’ (1929a, para. 18). He further writes:

I therefore asked myself whether this outgrowing, this possibility of further psychic development, was not the normal thing, and whether getting stuck in a conflict was pathological. Everyone must possess that higher level, at least in embryonic form, and must under favourable circumstances be able to develop this potentiality. When I examined the course of development in patients who quietly, and as if unconsciously, outgrew themselves, I saw that their fates had something in common. The new thing came to them from obscure possibilities either outside or inside themselves; they accepted it and grew with its help. It seemed to me typical that some took the new thing from outside themselves, other from inside; or rather, that it grew into some persons from without, and into others from within. But the new thing never came exclusively either from within or from without. If it came from outside, it became a profound inner experience; if it came from inside, it became an outer happening. In no case was it conjured into existence intentionally or by conscious willing, but rather seemed to be borne along on the stream of time.

(ibid.)

The above account of development as outgrowing could seem too metaphorical and some may find it not very helpful in concrete terms. However, the account seems to encompass many of the key themes which represent the distinctiveness of Jung’s view of development. For instance, we can observe such characteristics as symbolic, paradoxical, cyclical, spontaneous, and numinous aspects of the psyche involved in development. Connected with ‘the child’ as a symbol of the self, which we shall discuss in Chapter 3, this could be seen, metaphorically speaking, as the child growing out of childhood. Paradoxically, though, the child may be entering yet another childhood by means of rebirth, and so the process of outgrowing continues. Connected with the objective psyche in which individual psyches participate, the emergence of the new from within and without in this process could be linked with characteristics of active and passive objectivity of the objective psyche and passive and active subjectivity of an individual’s psyche, which we shall discuss in Chapter 8. Jung’s idea of development as outgrowing described above clearly indicates a bigger picture than what goes on within oneself or between one and one’s social environment. It certainly requires a perspective that accepts the depth of the unconscious as an essential part of psychological development.

Does the unconscious develop?

When it comes to psychological development, what is usually considered is something at least observable if not measurable, such as personality, behaviour, or some aspects of consciousness. To raise the question of whether the unconscious develops may not be practical. However, the purpose of exploring this question is to clarify what is often meant by development at the conscious level and to probe the limitations of applying that meaning to the whole psyche in Jung’s model.

Another dominant image of development is change, which also has a strong connection with the image of development as ‘progress’, ‘advancement’, and ‘improvement’. John Morss argues that developmental psychologists have confidently assumed that ‘change with time is fundamentally progressive’ (1990, p. 228). Since change is usually visible, this image of ‘development’ seems to concern conscious development but not unconscious development, if there is such a thing. For Jung, however, the whole psyche encompasses both the conscious and the unconscious, and therefore for Jung possibilities of unconscious development as well as conscious development need to be considered. Some people may argue that we cannot know whether or not or how the unconscious develops, as the unconscious is fundamentally unknown to us. Nevertheless, Jung attempts to conceptualise the unconscious, so we should be able to conceptualise the possibility of unconscious development. In fact, Jung argues:

The great question now is: in what do these unconscious processes consist? And how are they constituted? Naturally, so long as they are unconscious, nothing can be said about them. But sometimes they manifest themselves, partly through symptoms, partly through actions, opinions, affects, fantasies, and dreams. Aided by such observational material we can draw indirect conclusions as to the momentary state and constitution of the unconscious processes and their development.

(1928c, para. 272)

Therefore, at least at a theoretical level, it seems possible to postulate various connections between development and the unconscious. Consideration of the possibility of unconscious development is then indispensable, in order to fully address Jung’s account of psychological development.

I am not attempting here to arrive at any conclusion as to whether or not the unconscious does develop, but am simply trying to explore further the meaning of the word ‘develop’ in relation to the unconscious. This theoretical explanation involves focusing more on the unconscious as distinct from the conscious mind and yet as a part of the whole psyche. It aims at identifying some possibilities of unconscious development but without definitely concluding that this development exists. The unconscious may seem not to develop, so long as we are possessed by the dominant images of development which apply only to the conscious level. For the same principles may not easily apply to the unconscious. However, there are at least two ways of addressing the question of how, in Jung’s view, the unconscious might develop. One way is to challenge one of the general images of development and widen its meaning to include what is normally not regarded as development but is so regarded in Jung’s view. The other way is to accept the general images of development but consider another possibility of interpreting the meaning of development. Specifically, this includes questioning whether the word ‘development’ should be understood only as an intransitive verb (v.i. to develop) or also as a transitive verb (v.t. to develop something/somebody) and as a reflexive verb (v.ref...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• List of figures
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• PART I Jung on development
• 1 Psychological development
• 2 Regression
• 3 Symbolic child psychology
• PART II Theoretical and methodological discussions on development
• 4 ‘Recapitulation’ and ‘development’ in analytical psychology
• 5 Methodological issues in developmental psychology and analytical psychology
• PART III The Developmental School of analytical psychology
• 6 Jung, Fordham, and the ‘Developmental School’
• 7 The children’s rights movement and Fordham’s work with children
• PART IV Towards a Jungian developmental psychology
• 8 Jung as a qualitative psychologist
• 9 Conclusion