The Fear of the Feminine

And Other Essays on Feminine Psychology

Erich Neumann

• Editorial: Princeton University Press
• Año: 2022
• ISBN:
  9780691242828
• Categoría: Psicologia
• Categoría: Psicoanalisi

These essays by the famous analytical psychologist and student of creativity Erich Neumann belong in the context of the depth psychology of culture and reveal a prescient concern about the one-sidedness of patriarchal Western civilization. Neumann recommended a "cultural therapy" that he thought would redress a "fundamental ignorance" about feminine and masculine psychology, and he looked for societal healing to a "matriarchal consciousness" that forms the bridge between the feminine and the creative.
Brought together here for the first time, the essays in the book discuss the psychological stages of woman's development, the moon and matriarchal consciousness, Mozart's Magic Flute, the meaning of the earth archetype for modern times, and the fear of the feminine. In Mozart's fantastic world, Neumann saw a true Auseinandersetzung --the conflict and coming-to-terms with each other of the matriarchal and the patriarchal worlds. Developing such a synthesis of the feminine and the masculine in the psychic reality of the individual and of the collective was, he argued, one of the fundamental, future-oriented tasks of both the society and the individual.

I

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL STAGES OF WOMAN’S DEVELOPMENT

In The Origins and History of Consciousness¹ we traced the development of the archetypal stages that lead to the formation of consciousness and of an ego that we designate “patriarchal,” for the bearers of this predominantly occidental development are men with their characteristic values.

Although development of consciousness in a patriarchal direction is also necessary for the modern woman, her development follows an essentially different course. The normal development of the Western woman, as well as the psychological premises of her neuroses, form the empirical basis for the outline that we will attempt to present here.

The first stage of female as well as of male development is that of a psychic unity characterized by the symbol of the uroboros, the serpent forming a closed circle, the tail-eater. We prefer this symbol over the concept of the unconscious because the vitality and dynamic opposition of the processes are visible in it, qualities not conveyed by the notion of the unconscious.

In the original psychic situation a fusion or, better, a non-separation of the ego and the unconscious prevails. Here we are confronted with a pre-ego stage of the psyche that stands phylogenetically and ontogenetically at the beginning of the development of every individual consciousness. In this stage the ego of the female, like the ego of the male, relates to the unconscious as to a mother whose superiority is so great that we cannot yet speak of a separation between mother and child, unconscious and ego. To a certain extent the child is still unborn and contained in the maternal uroboros. Individually this situation is expressed in the child’s lack of separation from the mother, just as it is exemplified collectively by the individual’s containment in the supra-personal, maternally protective power of the group, the clan, or the family that to a great degree determines what the individual does or does not do.

Initially the unconscious appears as the good mother —that is, the child’s primal relationship to her carries a positive accent, for the dependent, infantile ego is protected and nourished by the maternal unconscious. By “primal relation to the mother” we mean the totality of the infant’s or small child’s relationships with its mother before it has developed a delimited personality with an ego-centered consciousness. More transpersonal than personal factors are operative in the primal relationship since the child is subject to a preponderance of transpersonal, archetypal forces.

Archetypally the primal relationship—i.e., the total dependency of the ego and of the individual on the unconscious and on the group—is experienced in projection on the mother who, despite her individuality, impresses the infant and the small child as the maternal uroboros and Great Mother.² The daughter’s primal relationship to the mother differs fundamentally from that of the son, and understanding this difference makes an essential contribution to understanding the discrepancy between the psychology of women and of men.

If we say that, following a decisive point in his development, the male child experiences the mother as a “dissimilar thou” different from himself while the girl child experiences mother as a “similar thou” and not different, a question arises: In what sense do we mean this, and how is this sort of “difference” possible, since the infant cannot initially be aware—and indeed, as we know, is not aware—of any sexual differences?

The embryonic as well as the infantile relationship of the child to the mother is the prototype of all primary relationships. In this sense the primal relationship actually “originates” from the mother; that is, it is informed by the mother archetype, the psychic prototype of the maternal element living in the human psyche. However, this is not to say that the child’s psychic reaction arises due to the effects of the primal relationship with the personal mother in the sense that, for example, psychoanalysis assumes the individual’s unique personal experiences to be the cause of later developments. The embryonic and infantile relationship to the mother is the prototype of every instance of participation mystique, and the ego’s “containment in the uroboros”³ is merely descriptive of this fact.

In the history of humankind the differentiation of man and woman belongs among the earliest and most impressive projections of opposites, and early humankind took the male and the female as the prototype of opposites in general. For this reason every archetypal opposition easily assumes the symbolism of the Masculine and the Feminine, and hence the opposition of conscious and unconscious is experienced in terms of this symbol, the Masculine identified with consciousness and the Feminine with the unconscious. This symbolic opposition is by no means limited to the secondary phenomena of anima and animus⁴ but arises from the original containment in the uroboros, the birthplace of “masculine” consciousness and the “maternal” unconscious. The objectivity of consciousness develops out of the non-differentiation of the unconscious in the course of human history through a symbolic “separation” of the Masculine from the Feminine. The male child experiences this principle of opposition between Masculine and Feminine within the primal relationship to the mother, a relationship that must be surrendered if the male child is to come into his own and find his identity as a male.

The totality of the psyche, the center of which is the Self, exists in a relationship of identity with the body, the vehicle of the psychic processes. The physical changes from infant to boy, youth, man, and graybeard are also accompanied by psychic changes that differ greatly from the corresponding changes in the development of woman. Hence between the sexes we must assume a biospychic difference that is manifested in archetypal and symbolic ways, even if it cannot be expressed in any strict characterological categories. Therefore the Self as the totality of the personality rightly carries secondary sexual characteristics, and both body and psyche are closely connected in their dependence on hormones.⁵

Even when, in pre-patriarchal societies, the male children long remain with the women’s groups and are shaped by their participation mystique, the experience of dissimilarity is a given from the very beginning, or at any rate from the point at which they perceive differences between the sexes. But how and under which cultural conditions the Masculine-Feminine principle of opposites is manifested is unimportant. Nor does it matter that this difference has been wrongly interpreted and has led to incorrect conclusions owing to culturally conditioned patriarchal prejudices.

Since the male experiences the primal situation—identity with the mother, the Feminine other—as identity with a non-Self, it is only in a later phase of development that Self-discovery as a male⁶ is attainable, standing as it does in opposition to the primal relationship. Only the achievement of detachment from the primal relationship and an objective attitude toward it leads to male Self-discovery and stability. When this is not achieved, the male remains entrapped and castrated in uroboric and matriarchal incest,⁷ that is, he is inauthentic and estranged from himself. Elsewhere we have described this fundamental situation and the development arising out of it as depicted in myths where the first stages of the development of consciousness were interpreted as essentially the liberation of the Masculine from the Feminine, of the son from the mother.

It is a fundamental male experience that the primal relationship, the identification with a thou, turns out to be “false.” The lasting effects of this experience appear in the male’s tendency toward objectivity with the confrontation this necessitates, in his tendency to relate only from the distant, conscious world of logos, and in his unwillingness to identify unconsciously with a thou. This leads to the male’s greater degree of isolation but equally to the intensified formation and solidity of ego and consciousness, all in a certain opposition to female psychology. As fear of relationship, this fundamental experience lurks in the background of many neuroses in men.

Since male Self-discovery is bound by its very nature to the development of consciousness and to the separation of conscious and unconscious systems, ego and consciousness always appear symbolized archetypally as masculine. This means that the male identifies his ego with consciousness and with his archetypally masculine role, and identifies himself with the development of consciousness in the course of human history. Individually he lives out the archetypal character of the hero and experiences his Self only in his victorious battle with the dragon, i.e., the natural side of the unconscious that confronts him in the form of the primal relationship.

But for the woman the primary relationship has a completely different significance and effect. When the child—whether female or male—becomes conscious of the principle of Masculine-Feminine opposition in whatever form it appears, the primal relationship to the mother is relatedness itself. But for the girl all the complications that lie in the boy’s experience of being different vanish. Even when she “comes into her own” as woman, identity with her mother in the primal relationship can continue to exist to a great extent, and her Self-discovery is primary since Self-discovery and primal relationship, in the case of the girl child, can coincide.

This means that a woman can continue in the primal relationship, expand in it, and come into her own without having to leave the circle of the maternal uroboros and the Great Mother. In so far as she remains in this realm she is, to be sure, childish and immature from the point of view of conscious development, but she is not estranged from herself. While a man in a similar situation is “castrated,” i.e., robbed of his authentic being, the woman merely remains fixated, held fast in an immature form of her authentic being. Again and again we find that, even in the midst of an occidental, patriarchal culture, a woman can flourish as a natural whole in this psychologically undeveloped form—that is, without a corresponding development of consciousness—that would have caused a man long since to fail in society and to become neurotic. This basic situation in which Self-discovery and the primal relationship correspond gives women the advantage of a natural wholeness and completeness from the beginning that men lack.

The mother-child relationship is that of mutual identification, and the fact that Self-discovery (in which woman experiences herself as female) coincides with the primal relationship (in which she experiences mother as female) leads to a primary reinforcement of all those relationships that come into being through identification. This also contrasts with the experience of the male, who fundamentally prefers a form of relatedness based on juxtaposition.

While relatedness in opposition or juxtaposition is a culturally shaped, individual form of relatedness, the woman’s natural ways of relating through identification derive from the blood bond of pregnancy, that is, from the primal relationship to mother with whom this relationship originates. For this reason the longing for relationships of identity accompanies a woman throughout her life and informs her tendency to create a similar situation again. But only as a grown woman, when she experiences pregnancy and becomes the bearer of the primal relationship for her child, does the matriarchally inclined woman’s longing find fulfillment; then her ego, as subject, experiences the containment of the child and identity with it.

The symbolic relationship of Demeter and Kore, whose mythological significance Jung and Kerényi⁸ have elucidated, characterizes the phase of Self-conservation in which the female ego remains bound to the maternal unconscious and the Self. The importance of this mythologem for woman’s psychology lies in this: here we find a matriarchal psychology that specifically determines the relationship of woman to the Feminine as well as to the Masculine. The effects of this sort of archetypally directed phase are almost always demonstrable in corresponding sociological constellations, while at the same time they rule the unconscious behavior of the individual woman. Consequently in our context it is of no importance to delimit the extent to which the psychological conditions affect the social situation or, vice versa, how far collective social conditions affect the psyche of the individual woman.

It is typical for the phase of Self-conservation that psychologically and often sociologically the woman remains in the women’s group—the mother clan—and maintains her continuity “upward” in relationship to the group of mothers and “downward” to the group of daughters. Her solidarity with the proximity to women and the Feminine coincide with her segregation and sense of alienation from men and the Masculine.

The exogamous brother, with whom contact is strictly hindered by taboos from early on, assumes the role of spiritual authority and masculine leadership, even if, as in the exogamous clan, he lives elsewhere. On the other hand, the husband from the alien clan, with whom there is a sexual relationship, remains a foreigner in the women’s group and is largely without rights or powers. The alien status of this man is often evidenced by the secrecy of his visits to his wife. The mother-in-law taboo—that is, the husband’s anxious avoidance of his wife’s mother—points in the same direction. This taboo is characteristic for the alienation, indeed the hostility, prevailing between males and females in this phase. For, psychologically speaking, the essence of the phase of Self-conservation lies in this: the dominance of the maternal element prevents any individual and complete meeting between man and woman, Masculine and Feminine. A part of this is, or is identical with, the woman’s experience of the male and of the Masculine as a hostile subjugator and robber.

The phase of Self-conservation of the Feminine can last a long time since it makes healthy human existence possible for woman and for the group. While this phase is to be regarded as positive in terms of preserving life, it has a negative effect when related to the development of consciousness, which is hindered by the arresting power of the unconscious. From this angle, the Great Mother appears as terrifying and devouring, not only as good and protective.

In terms of woman’s development, of course, the possibility that the phase of Self-conservation may last a long time does not mean that woman has not already come to terms with the Masculine and with the men with whom she has lived in the most intimate association from the beginning.

The fact that a “modern” married woman who has children and does not necessarily appear neurotic can live in the phase of Self-conservation means that, undisturbed by any conscious Auseinandersetzung, she exists in a state of unawareness about life and about living with another person. In this phase everything appears to her “obvious and natural,” which often enough indicates that she is filled with her own unconscious notions about the character of the Masculine and of her own husband without her having experienced, as an ego and an individual, the Masculine in general and her husband in particular. For woman, however, the significance of the Masculine far transcends her relationship to her male partner, and a woman whose development is arrested in the phase of Self-conservation is, generally speaking, an incomplete person even if she does not become neurotic. The outer and the inner relationship to the Masculine—that is, to the external man and to the masculine principle at work within her—constitutes part of her wholeness just as a relationship...