Collected Works of C.G. Jung. Volume 10 Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Volume 10: Civilization in Transition [Course Book ed.] 9781400850976

Citation preview

C IV IL IZ A TIO N IN T R A N SIT IO N C. G. JUJVG SEC O N D E D IT IO N

T R A N S L A T E D B Y R . F. C. H U L L

B O L L I N G E N

PRINCETON

S E R I E S

UNIVERSITY

X X

PRESS

1964

C O P Y R IG H T ©

BY B O L L IN G E N F O U N D A T IO N

SE C O N D E D IT IO N C O P Y R IG H T ©

1 9 7 0 BY P R IN C E T O N U N IV E R SIT Y PRESS

A L L RIG H TS RESERVED

T H IS E D IT IO N

IS B E IN G

P U B L IS H E D IN T H E

U N IT E D STA TES O F A M E R IC A BY P R IN C E T O N U N IV E R SIT Y

PRESS

AN D

IN

ENGLAND

BY

R O U T L E D G E AN D K EGA N P A U L , LTD . IN T H E A M E R IC A N E D IT IO N , A L L T H E V O L U M E S C O M ­ PR IS IN G T H E C O L L E C T E D W O RK S C O N S T IT U T E NUM BER SORED

XX

BY

PRESEN T

IN

B O L L IN G E N

B O L L IN G E N

VOLUM E

COLLECTED

SE R IE S,

F O U N D A T IO N .

IS N U M B E R

W ORKS,

AND

W AS

IO

OF

THE

SPO N ­ THE THE T H IR ­

TEE N T H T O APPEAR.

T h e U ndiscovered Self copyright © 1957, 1958, by C. G. Jung. Flying Saucers copyright © 1959 by C. G. Jung. "T h e D ream like W orld o f In d ia ’’ and "W hat India Can T each U s” copyright 1938 and 1939 respectively by E ditorial Publications, Inc.

T h ir d p r in tin g , 1978

15

16

14

LIB R A R Y O F CONGRESS C A T A L O G CARD N U M B E R : 7 5 - 1 5 6 ISBN O - 6 9 I - O 9 7 6 2 - 3 M A N U F A C T U R E D IN T H E U N IT E D STA TES O F A M E R IC A

ISBN-13 : 978 -0 -691 -09762-6 ISBN-10 : 0 -691 -09762-3

EDITORIAL

NOTE

I n 1918 J u n g p u b lis h e d a p ap er, “ T h e R o le o f th e U n co n scio u s,” w hich sounds th e k ey n o te of th e p re se n t v o lu m e. T h e r e h e p u t fo rw ard th e a rre s tin g th e o ry th a t th e conflict in E u ro p e , th e n alm o st exclusively in te rp re te d in m a te ria listic term s, was b asi­ cally a psychological crisis o rig in a tin g in th e co llectiv e u n c o n ­ scious o f th e in d iv id u a ls th a t fo rm g ro u p s a n d n a tio n s. S ubse­ q u e n tly h e w ro te a co n sid era b le n u m b e r of essays b e a rin g o n th e c o n te m p o ra ry scene an d , in p a rtic u la r, o n th e re la tio n o f th e in d iv id u a l to society. T h e first tw o sections of th is v o lu m e, w ritte n d u r in g th e years b etw ee n th e W o rld W ars, d ev elo p th e th em es b ro a c h e d in th e o p e n in g essay, a n d a re larg ely c o n c e rn e d w ith m o d e rn m a n ’s discovery o f his u n co h scio u s prem ises a n d th e im p o rta n c e o f selfkn ow ledge in e n a b lin g th e in d iv id u a l to m a in ta in h im se lf ag ain st social pressures. Specific q u estio n s, such as th e in flu en ce o f social changes o n th e re la tio n s b etw een th e sexes a n d of e th n ic factors o n th e d e v e lo p m e n t of psychological th eo ries, are also discussed. T h e th ir d sectio n p resen ts fo u r p ap ers p rev io u sly p u b lis h e d in Essays o n C o n te m p o r a r y E v e n ts (1947). I n these J u n g show s th a t th e d ream s a n d fan tasies of in d iv id u a l p a tien ts, n o less th a n social a n d p o litic a l u p h eav als, w h ich h e ex p la in s as psychic ep idem ics, can reflect te n d en cie s in th e u n co n scio u s life o f n atio n s. I n an essay first p u b lis h e d in 1936 W o ta n is p re se n te d as a n a rch e ty p al figure sy m b o lizin g th e u n co n scio u s agencies activ e in G e rm a n y w h ich fo u n d ex p ressio n in th e N azi m o v e m en t. T h e psychodynam ics w hich J u n g in fe rre d fro m th e b e h a v io u r o f in d iv id u a ls a n d g ro u p s, th o u g h easier to p erce iv e in G erm an y , had, how ever, a m u c h w id er a p p lic a tio n , as he m a d e clear in tw o m a jo r essays w ritte n in his last years. I n “T h e U n d isco v ered Self” (1957) h e re v e rts to th e re la tio n b e tw e e n th e in d iv id u a l

v

a n d a mass society, an d in “Flying Saucers" (1958) he exam ines the b irth of a m yth w hich he regards as com pensating the scien­ tistic trends of o u r technological era. Since the crisis in civiliza­ tio n is m ain tain ed by J u n g to be m oral, his late views on good an d evil and on the psychological fu n ction of conscience, in sec­ tio n six, are necessary and relev an t am plifications of his them e. T h e reviews an d short articles in section seven p resent Ju ng's lively an d em otional responses to the pronouncem ents of his contem porary, C o u n t H erm a n n Keyserling, o n n atio n al p ro b ­ lems, an d to his own visits to the U n ited States an d In d ia. Finally, the ap p en d ix brings together the docum ents relatin g to the years w hen J u n g was presid en t of the In te rn atio n al G eneral M edical Society for Psychotherapy an d e d ito r of its organ, the Zentralblatt filr P sychotherapie. H is energetic n atu re an d feelings of oblig atio n bo th to society an d to his colleagues com pelled him to accept this position as a vantage p o in t from w hich to com bat, to th e best of his ability, the th re a t to psychotherapy in G erm any u n d e r the Nazis. U njustly, he was subjected to a barrage of ten­ dentious and largely u n in fo rm ed criticism because of his action. T h e aims he consistently sought to achieve are now set forth fully for the first tim e, w ith the necessary docum entation. *

G ratefu l acknow ledgm ent is m ade to the A m erican-Scandinavian F oun d atio n , N ew York, for perm ission to q u o te from the Bel­ lows tran slatio n of T h e Poetic E dda; to the V iking Press, New York, for perm ission to quote from T h e Portable N ietzsche, translated by W alter K aufm ann an d copyright 1954 by the V iking Press, Inc.; an d to O tto M u ller Verlag, Salzburg, for perm ission to rep ro d u ce an illu stratio n from M aria Bockeler, H ildegard von B ingen: W issen die W ege. F or advice an d assist­ ance, the Editors are grateful to C. A. M eier, M .D., of Zurich; W alter C im bal, M .D., of H am b u rg ; W . M orgenthaler, M.D., of Bern; Miss Liselotte B endix, lib raria n of the N ew York Psycho­ analytic Society an d In stitu te ; a n d the staff of the W arb u rg In stitu te, L ondon. E D IT O R IA L N O T E T O T H E SEC O N D E D IT IO N F or this ed itio n essential corrections have been m ade in the text, a n d the bibliographical references have been b ro u g h t u p to date. ■

TABLE EDITORIAL LIST O F

OF

CONTENTS

NOTE

V

PLATES

xii I

T h e Role of the Unconscious Translated from "Ober (Zurich), I V (1918).

das

Unbewusste,"

3 Schweizerland

Mind and Earth

29

T r a n s l a t e d f r o m "Seele u n d E r d e , " Seelenprobleme Gegenwart (Zurich: R a s c h e r , 1931).

der

Archaic Man

50

T r a n s l a t e d f r o m " D e r archaische M e n s c h , " der Gegenwart (Zurich: Rascher, 1931).

Seelenprobleme

T h e Spiritual Problem of Modern Man

74

T r a n s l a t e d f r o m " D a s S e e l e n p r o b l e m des m o d e r n e n M e n schen," Seelenprobleme der Gegenwart (Zurich: Rascher, 1

93 1 )I I

T h e Love Problem of a Student

97

T r a n s l a t e d f r o m a n u n p u b l i s h e d ms. (1922?).

Woman in Europe

113

T r a n s l a t e d f r o m " D i e F r a u in E u r o p a , " Europaische (Berlin), I I I (1927).

vii

Revue

T h e M eaning of Psychology for Modern Man

134

T ra n sla te d from “D ie B ed eu tu n g der Psychologie fu r die G egenw art,” W irk lic h ke it der Seele (Zurich: R ascher, 1934).

T h e State of Psychotherapy Today

157

T ra n sla te d from “Z ur gegenw iirtigen Lage d e r Psychotherap ie,” Zentralblatt filr Psychotherapie u n d ihre Grenzgebiete (Leipzig), V II (1934).

III Preface to Essays on Contemporary Events

177

T ra n sla te d from V orw ort to Aufsdtze zur Zeitgeschichte (Zurich: Rascher, 1946).

W otan T ra n sla te d from “W o ta n ,” (Zurich), n.s., I l l (1936).

179 Neue

Schweizer

Rundschau

After the Catastrophe

194

T ra n sla te d from “N ach der !Catastrophe,” N e u e Schweizer R u n d s c h a u (Zurich), n.s., X III (1945).

T h e Fight with the Shadow

218

O riginally p u blished in E nglish in T h e L istener (London), X X X V I (1946).

Epilogue to Essays on Contemporary

Events

227

T ra n sla te d from N achw ort to Aufsatze zur Zeitgeschichte (Zurich: R ascher, 1946).

IV T h e Undiscovered Self (Present and Future) T ra n sla te d from Gegenwart u n d Z u k u n ft (Zurich: R ascher, ' 957 )-

1. T h e P lig h t of the In d iv id u a l in M odern Society, 247

viii

245

2. R e lig io n as th e C o u n te rb a la n c e to M ass-M indedness, 256 3. T h e P o sitio n o f th e W est o n th e Q u e stio n o f R e li­ g ion, 263 4. T h e I n d iv id u a l’s U n d e rs ta n d in g of H im self, 269 5. T h e P h ilo so p h ic a l a n d th e P sychological A p p ro a c h to L ife, 284 6. S elf-K now ledge, 293 7. T h e M e a n in g o f S elf-K now ledge, 302

V F ly in g Saucers: A M o d ern M yth o f T h in g s Seen in th e Skies

307

T r a n s la te d fro m E i n m o d e r n e r M y th u s : V o n D in g e n , d ie am H i m m e l g esehen w e rd e n (Z u rich a n d S tu ttg a rt: R asch er, 195 8 )·

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

P reface to th e F irst E n g lish E d itio n , 309 In tro d u c to ry , 311 U fos as R u m o u rs , 314 U fos in D ream s, 330 U fos in M o d e rn P a in tin g , 383 P rev io u s H isto ry o f th e U fo P h e n o m e n o n , 401 U fos C o n sid ered in a N on -P sy ch o lo g ical L ig h t, 413 E p ilo g u e. 418

VI A P sy ch o lo g ica l V ie w o f C o n scien ce

437

T ra n s la te d fro m “ D as G ew issen in psych o lo g isch er S ich t,” in Das Gewissen (S tu d ie n aus d em C. G. J u n g -In s titu t, V II; Z u rich : R asch er, 1958).

G o o d a n d E v il in A n a ly tic a l P sy ch ology T r a n s la te d fro m “ G u t u n d Bose in d e r a n aly tisch e n P sy ch o lo ­ gic,” in G u t u n d Bose in der P sy c h o th e ra p ie , ed. by W ilh e lm B itte r (S tu ttg a rt: “A m u n d S eelso rg er,” 1959).

ix

456

Introduction to T o n i W olff’s Studies in Jungian Psychology

469

T ra n sla te d from the V orrede to W olff, S tu d ien zu C. G. J u n g s Psychologic (Zurich: R h ein , 1959)-

V II T h e Swiss Line in the European Spectrum

479

T ra n sla te d from “ Die B ed eu tu n g d er schweizerischen L inie im S pektrum E uropas,’’ N e u e Schweizer R u n d sch a u (Zurich), X X IV (1928).

T h e Rise of a N ew W orld

489

T ra n sla te d from "D er A ufgang ein e r n eu en W elt,” N e u e Ziircher Z eitu n g (Zurich), 1930.

La R evolution M ondiale

496

T ra n sla te d from “ E in neues B uch von K eyserling,” Basler N ach rich ten , X X V III (1934).

T h e Com plications of American Psychology

502

O riginally p u blish ed in English as “Y our N egroid an d In d ia n B ehavior,” F orum (New York), L X X X III (1930).

T h e Dream like W orld of India

5 J5

O riginally published in English in Asia (New York), X X X IX

0939 )· W hat India Can T each Us

5«5

O riginally p u b lish ed in English in Asia (New York), X X X IX

0939 )· APPENDIX Editorial

533

T ra n sla te d from th e Z en tra lb la tt, V I (1933).

A Rejoinder to Dr. Bally T ra n s la te d from th e N e u e Ziircher Z eitu n g , CLV (1934).

x

C ir c u la r L e tte r

545

T r a n sla te d from th e Z e n tr a lb la tt, V II (1934).

E d ito r ia l

547

T r a n sla te d from th e Z e n t r a lb l a tt , V III (1935)·

E d ito r ia l N o te

55 2

T r a n sla te d from th e Z e n tr a lb la tt, V I I I (1935).

P re sid e n tia l A ddress to th e 8 th G e n e ra l M ed ical C ongress fo r P sy ch o th erap y , B ad N a u h e im , 1935

554

T r a n sla te d from an u n p u b lish e d ms.

C o n t r ib u tio n to a D isc u ssio n o n P s y c h o th e ra p y

557

T r a n sla te d from "V o tu m C. G. J u n g," Schw eizerische A e rzte z e it u n g fiir S ta n d e sfra g e n (B ern), X V I (1935).

P r e s id e n tia l A d d re ss to th e 9 th I n te r n a tio n a l M e d i­ cal C o n g re ss fo r P s y c h o th e ra p y , C o p e n h a g e n , 1937

561

T r a n sla te d from an u n p u b lish e d m s.

P r e s id e n tia l A d d re ss to th e 1 0 th I n te r n a tio n a l M e d i­ cal C o n g re ss fo r P sy c h o th e ra p y , O x fo rd , 1938

5 64

W r itten in E n glish ; n o t p rev io u sly p u b lish e d . B IB L IO G R A P H Y

569

IN D E X

581

LIST

OF

PLATES

rT h e p la tes fo llo w p . 404 I.

A Uf o V ision P a in tin g by a p a tie n t

II. E. Jakob y: T h e Fire Sower A u th o r’s collection

in. P. Birkhauser: T h e Fourth D im en sion P riv a te collection

iv. Yves T anguy: Painting, 1927 T itle u n k n o w n . P riv a te co llection

v. Basel Broadsheet, 1-566 W ick ian a C o llectio n , Z e n tra lb ib lio th e k , Z u rich

vi. N u rem berg Broadsheet, 1561 W ic k ia n a C ollectio n , Z e n tra lb ib lio th e k , Z u rich

vii. “T h e Spiritual P ilgrim D iscovering A nother W orld ” W o o d cu t, IQth(P) cent. V an H o u te n C o llectio n , B ergen, N e th e rla n d s

viii. “T h e Q uick en ing of the C hild in the W om b ” F ro m th e Scivias, by H ild e g a rd von B ingen, R u p e rtsb e rg C odex, 12th cent., as re p ro d u c e d in M . B ockeler, H ild e g a rd v o n B in g e n : W issen die W e g e : Scivias (Salzburg, 1954)

T H E ROLE OF T H E M IN D A N D

U N C O N SC IO U S EARTH

A R C H A IC M AN T H E SPIR IT U A L PROBLEM MODERN MAN

OF

BOLLINGEN

SERIES

THE COLLECTED

XX

WORKS

OF C

.

G

.

J

VOLUME

U

N

G

10

E D I T O R S SIR H E R B E R T MICHAEL

FORDHAM,

READ M.D.,

GERHARD ADLER, WILLIAM

MC GUIRE,

M.R.C.P.

PH.D.

executive

editor

T H E RO LE OF T H E U N C O N S C IO U S 1 T o the laym an ’s ears, the w ord “ u n con sciou s” has an under­ tone o£ so m eth in g m etaphysical and rather m ysterious. T h is peculiarity, attaching to the w h ole con cep t of the unconscious, is prim arily d u e to the fact that the term fou n d its way in to ord i­ nary speech as a d esign ation for a m etaphysical en tity. Eduard von H artm ann, for instance, called the unconscious the “ U n i­ versal G rou n d .” A gain, the word was taken up by occultism , b e­ cause p eo p le w ith these leanings are extrem ely fon d of borrow ­ in g scientific terms in order to dress their speculations in a “scientific” guise. In con trad iction to this, the exp erim en tal psy­ chologists, w h o for a lo n g tim e regarded th em selves—n ot u n ­ ju stly—as the representatives o f the o n ly truly scientific psychol­ ogy, adopted a n egative attitu d e towards the con cep t o f the unconscious, o n the grou n d that ev eryth in g psychic is conscious and that consciousness a lo n e deserves the nam e “psyche.” T h e y ad m itted that conscious psychic con ten ts show ed varying degrees of clarity, som e b e in g “brighter” or “darker” than others, b u t the existen ce o f unconscious co n ten ts was d en ied as b e in g a con trad iction in terms. T h is view stem m ed very largely from the circum stance that work in the laboratory was confined exclu sively to “norm al” subjects, an d also from the nature of the exp erim en ts th em ­ selves. T h ese w ere concerned so far as possible w ith the m ost elem entary psychic processes, w h ile the in vestigation of the m ore com p lex psychic functions, w hich by their very nature d o n o t len d them selves to exp erim en tal procedures based on exact m easurem ent, was alm ost en tirely absent. B u t a factor far trans­ cen d in g b oth these reasons in im portance was the segregation I [O rig in a lly p u b lish e d as “U e b e r das U n b ew u sste," S ch iu e ize rla n d : M o n a ts h e fte f i i r S c h w e ize r A r t u n d A r b e it (Z urich), IV (1918), n o . 9, 464—78, a n d n o . 11—i s , 5 4 8 -5 8 .—E d i t o r s .]

o f e x p e rim e n ta l psychology from psychopathology. I n France, ever since th e tim e of R ib o t, psychologists h a d k e p t a n a le n eye o n a b n o rm a l psychic p h e n o m en a , a n d o n e of th e ir m ost e m in e n t rep resen tativ es, B in et, even m ad e th e p ro n o u n c e m e n t th a t th e p ath o lo g ical psyche exaggerated c e rta in d ev iatio n s from th e n o rm a l w hich w ere difficult to u n d e rs ta n d , a n d , by th ro w in g th e m in to relief, m ad e th e m m o re co m p reh en sib le. A n o th e r F ren ch psychologist, P ie rre J a n e t, w o rk in g a t th e Salpetri£re, d ev o ted him self alm ost exclusively a n d w ith g re a t success to the stu d y o f psychopathological processes. B u t it is ju s t th e a b n o rm a l psychic processes w hich d e m o n stra te m ost clearly th e existence o f a n unconscious. F o r this reason it was th e m ed ical m en, a n d above all the specialists in th e field of psychic illnesses, w ho s u p ­ p o rte d the hypothesis of th e unconscio u s an d d e fe n d ed it m ost vigorously. B u t w hereas in F ran ce psychology was co n sid erab ly e n ric h e d by the findings o f psychopath o lo g y a n d was led to ac­ c ep t the n o tio n of “ un co n scio u s” processes, in G e rm a n y it was psychology th a t e n ric h e d psychopathology, su p p ly in g it w ith a n u m b e r of v a lu ab le e x p e rim e n ta l m eth o d s—w ith o u t, how ever, ta k in g over from psychopathology its in te re st in p ath o lo g ical p h e n o m en a . T h is ex p lain s in large p a rt w hy p sy chopathological research u n d e rw e n t a d ifferen t d e v e lo p m e n t in G e rm a n science fro m th a t follow ed in F ran ce. I t b ecam e—e x ce p t fo r th e in te re st it aro u sed in academ ic circles—a task fo r th e m ed ical p ra c ti­ tio n e r, w ho by his p rofessional w o rk was co m p elled to u n d e r­ sta n d th e c o m p le x psychic p h e n o m e n a e x h ib ite d by his p atien ts. In th is way th e re cam e in to b e in g th a t c o m p le x of th e o re tic al views a n d p ractical te ch n iq u es w hich is k n o w n as “ psycho­ analysis.” T h e c o n ce p t o f the u n conscio u s u n d e rw e n t a b ro ad d e v elo p m en t in th e psychoanalytic m o v em en t, fa r m o re so th a n in th e F re n c h school, w h ich was m o re co n cern ed w ith th e v a ri­ ous form s in w hich unconscious processes m an ifested them selves th a n w ith th e ir c au satio n a n d th e ir specific c o n te n t. F ifte e n years ago, in d e p e n d e n tly of th e F re u d ia n school a n d o n th e basis of m y ow n e x p e rim e n ta l researches, I satisfied m yself as to th e ex istence a n d significance o f unco n scio u s processes, in d ic a tin g a t th e sam e tim e th e m eth o d s b y w hich these processes m ig h t b e d e m o n strated . L a te r, in c o lla b o ra tio n w ith a n u m b e r of my p u p ils, I also d e m o n stra te d th e significance of u n co n scio u s proc­ esses in th e m e n ta lly insane.

3

A s a re s u lt o f th is—a t first—p u re ly m e d ic a l d e v e lo p m e n t th e c o n c e p t o f th e u n c o n sc io u s to o k o n a c o lo ra tio n d e riv e d fro m th e n a tu r a l sciences. I t has re m a in e d a p u re ly m e d ic a l c o n c e p t in th e F r e u d ia n school. A c c o rd in g to th e view s o f th is school, m a n , as a c iv iliz ed b e in g , is u n a b le to a c t o u t a larg e n u m b e r o f in s tin c tiv e im p u lse s a n d w ishes, fo r th e sim p le re a so n th a t th ey a re in c o m p a tib le w ith law a n d m o ra lity . I n so far, th e re fo re , as h e w a n ts to a d a p t h im se lf to society, h e is o b lig e d to su p p re ss th e se w ishes. T h e a ss u m p tio n th a t m a n has su ch w ishes is a lto ­ g e th e r p la u sib le , a n d th e tr u th o f it c an b e seen a t a n y tim e by ev ery in d iv id u a l w ith a little a p p lic a tio n o f h o n e sty . B u t th is ip s ig h t a m o u n ts as a r u le o n ly to th e g e n e ra l s ta te m e n t th a t socially in c o m p a tib le a n d in a d m issib le w ishes ex ist. E x p e rie n c e show s, h o w e v er, th a t th e facts a re q u ite d iffe re n t w h e n w e co m e d o w n to in d iv id u a l cases. I t th e n proves, re m a rk a b ly e n o u g h , th a t very o fte n , as a re s u lt of th e s u p p re ssio n o f a n in a d m is sib le w ish, th e th in w all b e tw e e n w ish in g a n d b e in g co n scio u s o f th e w ish is b ro k e n , so th a t th e w ish b eco m es u n c o n sc io u s. I t is fo r­ g o tte n , a n d its p la c e is ta k e n by a m o re o r less ra tio n a l ju stific a ­ tio n —if, in d e e d , a n y m o tiv a tio n is s o u g h t a t a ll. T h i s process, w h e re b y a n in a d m is sib le w ish becom es u n c o n sc io u s, is c a lle d rep re ssio n , as d is tin c t fro m s u p p re ssio n , w h ic h p re su p p o se s th a t th e w ish re m a in e d conscious. A lth o u g h re p re sse d a n d fo rg o tte n , th e in c o m p a tib le c o n te n t—w h e th e r it co n sist o f w ishes o r of p a in fu l m e m o rie s—n e v erth ele ss exists, a n d its u n p e rc e iv e d p re s ­ en ce in flu en ces th e con scio u s processes. T h i s in flu e n c e expresses its e lf in th e fo rm o f p e c u lia r d is tu rb a n c e s o f th e co n scio u s, n o rm a l fu n c tio n s ; w e call these d is tu rb a n c e s n e rv o u s o r p sy c h o ­ g e n ic d is tu rb a n c e s . T h e re m a rk a b le th in g is th a t th e y d o n o t c o n fin e th em selv es to p u re ly psych o lo g ical processes b u t e x te n d also to p h y sio lo g ical ones. I n th e la tte r case, as J a n e t e m p h a ­ sizes, it is n e v e r th e e le m e n ta ry c o m p o n e n ts o f th e fu n c tio n th a t a re d is tu rb e d , b u t o n ly th e v o lu n ta ry a p p lic a tio n o f th e fu n c tio n u n d e r v a rio u s c o m p le x c o n d itio n s. F o r in sta n c e , a n e le m e n ta ry c o m p o n e n t o f th e n u tr itiv e fu n c tio n consists in th e a c t o f sw allow ing. I f c h o k in g w ere re g u la rly to o c c u r w h e n e v e r fo o d in so lid o r liq u id fo rm was ta k e n , th e n i t w o u ld b e a n a n a to m ic a l o r o rg a n ic d is tu rb a n c e . B u t if th e c h o k in g o c c u rre d o n ly in th e case o f c e rta in foods o r a t c e rta in m eals, o r o n ly in th e p re sen c e o f c e r ta in p erso n s, o r o n ly in c e r ta in m o o d s, th e n i t w o u ld b e a

4

5

nervous o r psychogenic distu rb an ce. T h e psychogenic d istu rb ­ ance therefore affects m erely th e act of eating u n d e r certain psychological an d n o t physical conditions. Such disturbances of physiological functions are particularly fre q u e n t in hysteria. In an o th er, equally large g ro u p of illnesses which French doctors call psychasthenia, th eir place is taken by pu rely psychological disturbances. T h ese can assum e a great variety of forms, such as obsessional ideas, anxiety states, depres­ sions, moods, fantasies, pathological affects an d im pulses, an d so on. A t the ro o t of all these disturbances we find repressed psychic contents, i.e., contents th at have becom e unconscious. O n the basis of these purely em pirical findings, the concept of the u n ­ conscious as the sum -total of all in com patible an d repressed wishes, in clu d in g all p a in fu l an d repressed m em ories, gradually took form . N ow it is an easily d em o n strated fact th at the overw helm ing m ajority of these in co m p atib le contents have to do w ith the p hen o m en o n of sexuality. Sexuality is a fundam ental instinct w hich, as everyone knows, is th e m ost hedged a b o u t w ith secrecy and w ith feelings of delicacy. In the form of love, it is the cause of the storm iest em otions, the w ildest longings, the p rofoundest despairs, the m ost secret sorrows, and, altogether, of the m ost p ain fu l experiences. Sexuality is an im p o rta n t physical an d widely ram ified psychic fu n ctio n on w hich the w hole fu tu re of h u m an ity depends. I t is thus a t least as im p o rta n t as the function of n u tritio n , even though it is a n in stin ct of an o th er kind. B ut w hereas we can allow the n u tritiv e function, from the devour­ ing of a sim ple piece of bread to a guild b an q u et, to be seen by all eyes in all its variations, a n d a t m ost m ust hold it in check because of an attack of in testin al catarrh or a general food short­ age, sexuality comes u n d e r a m o ral taboo and has to su b m it to a large n u m b e r of legal regulations a n d restrictions. I t is not, like the n u tritiv e function, at the free disposal of the individual. I t is therefore u n d erstan d ab le th a t a great m any pressing interests a n d pow erful em otions congregate ro u n d this question, for as a ru le affects are fo u n d a t places w here ad ap tatio n is least com ­ plete. F u rth erm o re, sexuality, as I have said, is a fu n d am en tal in stin ct in every h u m an being, and this is reason enough for the w ell-know n F reu d ia n theory w hich reduces everything to sexual­ ity, an d sketches a p ic tu re of the unconscious w hich m akes it 6

a p p e a r as a k in d o f lu m b e r-ro o m w h e re a ll th e re p re sse d a n d in a d m issib le in fa n tile w ishes a n d a ll th e la te r, in a d m is sib le sex u a l w ishes a re sto re d . D ista ste fu l as s u c h a v iew is, w e m u s t give i t its d u e if w e w a n t to d isco v e r a ll th e th in g s th a t F r e u d has sm u g g le d in to th e c o n c e p t o f se x u a lity . W e sh a ll th e n see th a t h e has w id e n e d its b o u n d a rie s fa r b e y o n d th e p e r m itte d lim its, so th a t a b e tte r w o rd fo r w h a t h e a c tu a lly m e an s w o u ld b e “ E ro s” in th e o ld , p h ilo s o p h ic a l sense o f a P an -E ro s w h o p e r ­ m eates all n a tu r e as a c re a tiv e a n d p ro c re a tiv e force. “ S e x u a lity ” is a m o st u n h a p p y e x p re ssio n fo r th is. B u t, su ch as i t is, th e c o n ­ c e p t o f s e x u a lity h as n o w b e e n c o in e d a n d a p p e a rs to h a v e su ch d e fin ite lim its th a t o n e even h e sitate s to use th e w o rd “ lo v e” as a synonym . A n d y et F re u d , as c an easily b e sh o w n fro m n u m e r­ ous passages in his w ritin g s, very o fte n m e an s “ lo v e ” w h e n h e speaks m e re ly o f sex u a lity . 6 T h e w h o le F r e u d ia n m o v e m e n t has s e ttle d firm ly fo r th e s ex u a l th eo ry . T h e r e is c e rta in ly n o u n p re ju d ic e d th in k e r o r in ­ v e stig a to r w h o w o u ld n o t in s ta n tly a ck n o w le d g e th e e x tra o rd i­ n a ry im p o rta n c e o f se x u a l o r e ro tic e x p e rie n c e s a n d conflicts. B u t i t w ill n e v e r b e p ro v e d th a t se x u a lity is the f u n d a m e n ta l in ­ s tin c t a n d the a c tiv a tin g p rin c ip le o f th e h u m a n psyche. A n y u n p re ju d ic e d sc ie n tist w ill, o n th e c o n tra ry , a d m it th a t th e psyche is a n e x tre m e ly c o m p le x s tru c tu re . T h o u g h w e c a n a p ­ p ro a c h it fro m th e b io lo g ic a l s ta n d p o in t a n d seek to e x p la in it in term s o f b io lo g ic a l factors, it p re se n ts us w ith a g re a t m a n y o th e r puzzles w hose s o lu tio n m akes d e m a n d s w h ic h n o is o la te d science, su ch as b iology, is in a p o s itio n to satisfy. N o m a tte r w h a t in ­ stin cts, d riv e s o r d y n a m ism s b io lo g ists m ay p o s tu la te o r assu m e b o th n o w a n d in th e fu tu r e , i t w ill a ssu re d ly b e q u ite im p o ssib le to set u p a sh a rp ly d e fin e d in s tin c t lik e s e x u a lity as a fu n d a ­ m e n ta l p rin c ip le o f e x p la n a tio n . B iology, in d e e d scien ce in g e n ­ era l, has g o t b e y o n d th is stage: w e n o lo n g e r re d u c e e v e ry th in g to a sin g le m a n ife s t force, as th e e a r lie r scien tists d id w ith p h lo g is to n a n d e le c tric ity . W e h a v e le a rn e d to e m p lo y a m o d e st a b s tra c tio n , n a m e d en erg y , as a n e x p la n a to ry p rin c ip le fo r a ll q u a n tita tiv e changes. 7 I am c o n v in c e d th a t a tru ly scien tific a ttitu d e in psychology m u s t likew ise le a d to th e c o n c lu sio n th a t th e d y n a m ic processes o f th e psyche c a n n o t b e re d u c e d to th is o r th a t c o n c re te in s tin c t —w e s h o u ld m e re ly fin d ou rselv es b a ck a t th e stage o f th e p h lo -

giston theory. W e shall be o b lig ed to take th e instincts as co n ­ s titu e n t parts of th e psyche, a n d th e n ab stract o u r p rin c ip le of e x p la n a tio n fro m th e ir m u tu a l relatio n sh ip .. I have th erefo re p o in te d o u t th a t we w o u ld d o w ell to p osit a hy p o th etical q u a n tity , a n “en erg y ,” as a psychological ex p lan ato ry p rin cip le, a n d to call it “lib id o ” in th e classical sense of th e w ord, w ith o u t h a rb o u rin g any p re ju d ic e w ith re g a rd to its su b stan tiality . W ith th e h e lp of such a q u a n tity , th e psychodynam ic processes could b e ex p la in ed in an u n o b je c tio n a b le m an n er, w ith o u t th a t u n ­ av o id ab le d isto rtio n w h ich a con crete g ro u n d of e x p lan atio n necessarily entails. T h u s , w h en th e F re u d ia n school explains th a t relig io u s feelings o r any o th e r sen tim en ts th a t p e rta in to th e s p iritu a l sp h ere are “ n o th in g b u t ” in ad m issib le sexual wishes w h ich have b een repressed a n d su b seq u en tly “s u b lim a te d ,” this p ro c e d u re w ould be e q u iv a le n t to a physicist’s e x p la n a tio n th a t electricity is “ n o th in g b u t ” a w aterfall w hich som eone h ad b o u g h t u p a n d p ip e d in to a tu rb in e . I n o th e r w ords, electricity is n o th in g b u t a “c u ltu ra lly d e fo rm e d ” w aterfall—a n a rg u m e n t w hich m ig h t conceivably be raised by th e Society for th e P reser­ v atio n of W ild N a tu re b u t is h ard ly a piece of scientific ra tio ­ c in atio n . In psychology such a n e x p la n a tio n w o u ld be a p p ro p ri­ a te only if it co u ld b e p ro v ed th a t th e dynam ic g ro u n d of o u r b e in g is n o th in g b u t sexuality, w h ich am o u n ts to saying, in physics, th a t fallin g w ater alo n e can p ro d u ce electricity. In th a t case it c o u ld rig h tly b e m a in ta in e d th a t electricity is n o th in g b u t a w aterfall co n d u c te d alo n g wires. So if w e Teject th e exclusively sexual th eo ry of th e u n c o n ­ scious an d p u t in its place an en erg ic view of th e psyche, we m u st say th a t th e u n conscious co n tain s ev ery th in g psychic th a t has n o t reach ed th e th resh o ld of consciousness, o r w hose energycharge is n o t sufficient to m a in ta in it in consciousness, o r th a t w ill reach consciousness o n ly in th e fu tu re . W e can th e n p ic tu re to ourselves how th e unconscious m u st b e co n stitu te d . W e have alread y tak en cognizance of repressions as co n ten ts o f th e u n co n ­ scious, a n d to these we m u st a d d everything that we have fo r­ gotten. W h e n a th in g is fo rg o tten , it does n o t m ean th a t it is ex tin g u ish ed ; it sim ply m eans th a t th e m em ory has becom e s u b ­ lim in al. Its energy-charge has su n k so low th a t it can n o longer a p p e a r in consciousness; b u t, th o u g h lost to consciousness, it is n o t lost to th e unconscious. I t w ill n a tu ra lly b e o b jected th a t 8

this is n o m o re th a n a fagon de parler. I w o u ld lik e to m ake w h a t I m e an clear by a h y p o th etical exam ple. S uppose th e re are tw o p eo p le, o n e of w hom has n e v e r re a d a b o o k a n d th e o th e r has re a d a th o u san d . F ro m th e m in d s of b o th of th e m we ex ­ p u n g e all m em o ry o f th e ten years in w hich th e first was m erely liv in g a n d th e second was re a d in g his th o u san d books. Each now know s as little as th e o th e r, a n d yet anyone w ill be a b le to find o u t w h ich of th e m has re a d th e books an d , be it n o ted , u n d ersto o d th em . T h e ex p erien ce of read in g , th o u g h lo n g for­ g o tten , leaves traces b e h in d it, a n d fro m these traces th e previous ex p erien ce can b e recognized. T h is long-lasting, in d ire c t in flu ­ ence is d u e to a fixing of im pressions, w hich are still preserved even w h e n th ey are n o lo n g er cap ab le of re a c h in g consciousness. 9 Besides th ings th a t have b e en fo rg o tten , su b lim in a l p ercep ­ tions fo rm p a rt of th e co n ten ts o f th e unconscious. T h e se m ay be sense p e rc ep tio n s o c c u rrin g belo w th e stim u lu s-th resh o ld of conscious h e arin g , o r in th e p e rip h e ra l field of vision; o r they m ay b e ap p ercep tio n s, by w h ich are m e a n t p ercep tio n s of endopsychic o r e x te rn a l processes. »o A ll this m a te ria l co n stitu tes th e personal unconscious. W e call it p erso n al because it consists e n tire ly of acq u isitio n s d eriv ­ in g from p erso n al life. T h e re fo re , w h en a n y th in g falls in to the unconscious it is tak en u p in th e n etw o rk of associations fo rm ed b y this un co n scio u s m ateria l. A ssociative co n n ectio n s of h ig h in ten sity m ay th e n be p ro d u ced , w h ich cross over o r rise u p in to consciousness in th e fo rm of in sp iratio n s, in tu itio n s, “lucky ideas,’’ a n d so on. T h e co n cep t o f a p erso n al unco nscious does n o t, how ever, en a b le us fu lly to grasp th e n a tu re of th e unconscious. If the unconscious w ere o nly perso n al, it w o u ld in th eo ry be possible to trace all th e fantasies of a n in san e perso n back to in d iv id u a l exp erien ces a n d im pressions. N o d o u b t a large p ro p o rtio n of the fantasy -m aterial c o u ld b e re d u c e d to his p erso n al history, b u t th e re a re c e rta in fantasies w hose ro ots in th e in d iv id u a l’s p re ­ vious h isto ry o n e w o u ld seek fo r in vain. W h a t so rt of fantasies a re these? T h e y are, in a w ord, m yth o lo g ica l fantasies. T h e y are elem en ts w h ich d o n o t c o rresp o n d to any events o r experiences of p erso n al life, b u t only to m yths. 1S W h ere d o these m y thological fantasies com e from , if they do n o t s p rin g fro m th e p erso n al u n conscious a n d h ence fro m th e

experiences of perso n al life? In d u b ita b ly they com e from the b ra in —indeed, precisely fro m th e b ra in a n d n o t from personal m em ory-traces, b u t fro m th e in h e rite d b ra in -stru c tu re itself. Such fantasies always have a h ig h ly o rig in a l a n d "creativ e” ch ar­ acter. T h e y are like n ew creatio n s; obviously they d eriv e from th e creative activ ity of th e b ra in a n d n o t sim ply from its m n e ­ m on ic activity. W e receive alo n g w ith o u r b o d y a h ig h ly d if­ fe re n tia te d b ra in w hich b rin g s w ith it its e n tire history, a n d w hen it becom es creative it creates o u t of this history—o u t of th e h isto ry of m an k in d . By “h isto ry ” we usually m ean th e history w hich we "m ak e,” a n d we call this "o b jectiv e h isto ry .” T h e tru ly creativ e fantasy activity of th e b ra in has n o th in g to d o w ith this k in d of history, b u t solely w ith th a t age-old n a tu r a l history w hich has b een tra n sm itte d in liv in g form since th e rem o te st tim es, nam ely, the h isto ry of th e b ra in -stru ctu re. A n d this stru c ­ tu re tells its ow n story, w hich is th e story of m a n k in d : th e u n ­ en d in g m y th of d e a th a n d r e b irth , a n d of th e m u ltitu d in o u s figures w ho weave in a n d o u t of this m ystery. »3 T h is unconscious, b u rie d in th e s tru c tu re of th e b ra in a n d disclosing its liv in g presence only th ro u g h the m e d iu m of crea­ tive fantasy, is the suprapersonal unconscious. I t com es alive in th e creativ e m an, it reveals itself in th e vision of th e artist, in th e in sp ira tio n of th e th in k e r, in th e in n e r ex p erien ce of th e m ystic. T h e su p rap erso n al unconscious, b e in g d is trib u te d th ro u g h o u t th e b rain -stru c tu re , is lik e an all-pervading, o m n ip resen t, o m ­ n isc ie n t sp irit. I t know s m a n as he always was, a n d n o t as he is a t this m o m en t; it know s h im as m yth. F o r this reason, also, the co n n ec tio n w ith th e su p ra p e rso n al o r collective unconscious m eans an ex ten sio n of m an bey o n d him self; it m eans d e a th for his p ersonal b e in g a n d a re b irth in a new dim en sio n , as was literally en acted in c e rta in o f th e a n c ie n t m ysteries. I t is cer­ tain ly tru e th a t w ith o u t th e sacrifice of m an as he is, m an as he was—a n d always w ill b e—c a n n o t be atta in e d . A n d it is th e a rtis t w ho can tell us m ost a b o u t this sacrifice of th e personal m an , if we are n o t satisfied w ith th e m essage of th e Gospels. >4 I t sh o u ld o n n o a cc o u n t be im ag in ed th a t th ere are such things as in h e rite d ideas. O f th a t th ere can b e n o q u estio n . T h e re are, how ever, in n a te possibilities of ideas, a p rio ri co n ­ d itio n s fo r fan tasy -p ro d u ctio n , w h ich are som ew hat sim ila r to th e K a n tian categories. T h o u g h these in n a te c o n d itio n s do n o t 10

p ro d u c e a n y c o n te n ts o f th em selv es, th e y give d e fin ite fo rm to c o n te n ts th a t h a v e a lre a d y b e e n a c q u ire d . B e in g a p a r t o f th e in h e r ite d s tr u c tu r e of th e b ra in , th e y a re th e re a so n fo r th e id e n tity o f sy m b o ls a n d m y th -m o tifs in a ll p a rts o f th e e a rth . T h e c o lle c tiv e u n c o n sc io u s fo rm s th e d a rk b a c k g ro u n d a g a in s t w h ic h th e a d a p tiv e f u n c tio n o f consciousness sta n d s o u t in s h a rp re lie f. O n e is a lm o s t te m p te d to say th a t e v e ry th in g o f v a lu e in th e psyche is ta k e n u p in to th e a d a p tiv e fu n c tio n , a n d th a t ev ery ­ th in g useless goes to fo rm th a t in c h o a te b a c k g ro u n d fro m w h ic h , to th e te r r o r o f p r im itiv e m a n , m e n a c in g sh ad o w s a n d n o c tu r n a l sp ectres d e ta c h th em selv es, d e m a n d in g sacrifices a n d c e re m o n ie s w h ic h to o u r b io lo g ic a lly o rie n te d m in d s seem fu tile a n d m e a n ­ ingless. W e la u g h a t p r im itiv e s u p e rs titio n s , th in k in g o u rse lv es s u p e rio r, b u t w e c o m p le te ly fo rg e t th a t w e a re in flu e n c e d in ju s t as u n c a n n y a fa s h io n as th e p r im itiv e b y th is b a c k g ro u n d , w h ic h w e a re w o n t to scoff a t as a m u s e u m o f s tu p id itie s . P r im i­ tiv e m a n sim p ly has a d iffe re n t th e o ry —th e th e o ry o f w itc h c ra ft a n d sp irits . I fin d th is th e o ry very in te re s tin g a n d v ery s e n s ib le — a c tu a lly m o re se n sib le th a n th e a c a d e m ic view s o f m o d e rn sci­ en ce. W h e re a s th e h ig h ly e d u c a te d m o d e rn m a n trie s to fig u re o u t w h a t d ie t b e st su its h is n e rv o u s in te s tin a l c a ta rr h a n d to w h a t d ie te tic m ista k es th e n e w a tta c k m ay b e d u e , th e p rim itiv e , q u ite c o rre c tly , lo o k s fo r p sy ch o lo g ical re a so n s a n d seeks a psy­ c h ic a lly effective m e th o d o f c u re . T h e processes in th e u n c o n ­ scious in flu e n c e us ju s t as m u c h as th e y d o p rim itiv e s ; w e a re possessed by th e d e m o n s o f sickness n o less th a n they, o u r psyche is ju s t as m u c h in d a n g e r o f b e in g s tru c k b y so m e h o s tile in flu ­ en ce, w e a re ju s t as m u c h th e p re y o f m a le v o le n t s p irits o f th e d e a d , o r th e v ic tim s o f a m a g ic sp ell cast b y a stra n g e p e rs o n a lity . O n ly , w e c all a ll th e se th in g s b y d iffe re n t n a m es, a n d th a t is th e o n ly a d v a n ta g e w e h a v e o v e r p rim itiv e m a n . I t is, as w e k n o w , a little th in g , y e t i t m ak es a ll th e d iffe re n c e . F o r m a n k in d it w as alw ays lik e a d e liv e ra n c e fro m a n ig h tm a re w h e n th e n e w n a m e was fo u n d . 1S T h is m y ste rio u s b a c k g ro u n d , w h ic h fro m tim e im m e m o ria l p e o p le d th e n o c tu r n a l sh adow s o f th e p rim e v a l fo re st w ith th e sam e y e t e v e r-c h a n g in g figures, seem s lik e a d is to rte d re fle c tio n o f life d u r in g th e day, re p e a tin g itse lf in th e d re a m s a n d te rro rs o f th e n ig h t. S h ad o w ily th e y c ro w d r o u n d , th e re v e n a n ts , th e sp irits o f th e d e a d , fle e tin g m e m o ry -im ag e s ris e n fro m th e p ris o n I I

of th e past w hence n o liv in g th in g re tu rn s , o r feelings left b e­ h in d by som e im pressive e x p erien ce a n d now personified in spectral form . A ll this seems b u t th e b itte r a ftertaste from the' em p tie d b eak e r of th e day, th e u n w elco m e lees, th e useless sedi­ m e n t of ex p erien ce. B u t if we look closer, we discover th a t this a p p a re n tly ho stile b a c k g ro u n d sends o u t p o w erfu l em issaries w hich influence th e b e h a v io u r of p rim itiv es in th e h ig h est d e ­ gree. Som etim es these agencies tak e o n a m agical, som etim es a relig io u s form , a n d som etim es th e tw o form s a p p e a r in e x tric a b ly m ixed. B oth of th em a re th e m o st im p o rta n t factors in th e p rim i­ tive m en ta lity a fte r th e stru g g le fo r existence. In th em th e s p irit­ u al e le m e n t m anifests itself a u to n o m o u sly to th e p rim itiv e psyche—whose reflexes are p u re ly a n im a l—in projected, sensuous form , a n d we E u ro p ean s m u st som etim es be stru ck w ith w o n d er a t th e trem en d o u s influence th e ex p erien ce of th e s p irit can have o n p rim itiv e m an. F o r h im , th e sensuous im m ediacy of the o b ject attaches to s p iritu a l p h e n o m e n a as w ell. A th o u g h t ap­ pears to h im , he does n o t th in k it; it appears to h im in th e form of a p ro je c ted sensuous p e rce p tio n , alm o st like an h a llu c in a tio n , o r a t least like a n ex trem ely viv id dream . F o r this reason a th o u g h t, for th e p rim itiv e , can su p erim p o se itself on sensuous re a lity to such an e x te n t th a t if a E u ro p e a n w ere to behave in th e sam e way we sh o u ld say he was m ad. »6 T h e se p ec u liarities of p rim itiv e psychology, w h ich I can only to u ch lig h tly o n here, are of g re at im p o rtan ce for an u n d e r­ sta n d in g of th e collective unconscious. A sim ple reflection w ill b e a r this o u t. As civilized h u m a n beings, we in W estern E u ro p e have a h istory re ac h in g back p erh ap s 2,500 years. B efore th a t th e re is a p reh isto ric p erio d of co n sid erab ly g re a te r d u ra tio n , d u rin g w h ich m an reach ed th e c u ltu ra l level of, say, th e S ioux Indian s. T h e n com e th e h u n d re d s o f thousands of years of n e o ­ lith ic c u ltu re , a n d b efo re th a t an u n im a g in a b ly vast stretch of tim e d u r in g w h ich m an evolved fro m th e an im al. A m ere fifty gen eratio n s ago m any of us in E u ro p e w ere n o b e tte r th a n p rim i­ tives. T h e layer of c u ltu re , th is p leasing p atin a, m u st th erefo re be q u ite e x tra o rd in a rily th in in co m p ariso n w ith th e p o w erfu lly d ev elo p ed layers of th e p rim itiv e psyche. B u t it is these layers th a t form th e collective unconscious, to g eth er w ith th e vestiges of a n im a lity th a t lose them selves in th e n e b u lo u s abyss of tim e. >7 C h ristia n ity sp lit th e G erm a n ic b a rb a ria n in to a n u p p e r a n d 12

a lo w e r h a lf, a n d e n a b le d h im , by re p re ss in g th e d a rk sid e, d o m e stic a te th e b r ig h te r h a lf a n d fit it fo r c iv iliz a tio n . B u t th e lo w er, d a r k e r h a lf s till aw aits re d e m p tio n a n d a sec o n d sp ell of d o m e stic a tio n . U n til th e n , it w ill re m a in asso ciated w ith th e vestiges o f th e p re h is to ric age, w ith th e c o lle c tiv e u n c o n sc io u s, w h ic h is s u b je c t to a p e c u lia r a n d e v e r-in c re a sin g a c tiv a tio n . As th e C h ris tia n v iew o f th e w o rld loses its a u th o r ity , th e m o re m e n a c in g ly w ill th e “ b lo n d b e a s t” b e h e a rd p ro w lin g a b o u t in its u n d e r g r o u n d p riso n , re a d y a t an y m o m e n t to b u r s t o u t w ith d e v a s ta tin g c o n se q u e n ce s. W h e n th is h a p p e n s in th e in d iv id u a l it b rin g s a b o u t a p sychological re v o lu tio n , b u t it c a n also tak e a social fo rm . »8 I n m y o p in io n th is p ro b le m does n o t e x ist fo r th e Jew s. T h e J e w a lre a d y h a d th e c u ltu r e of th e a n c ie n t w o rld a n d o n to p o f th a t has ta k e n o v e r th e c u ltu r e o f th e n a tio n s a m o n g st w h o m h e dw ells. H e h as tw o c u ltu re s , p a ra d o x ic a l as th a t m a y s o u n d . H e is d o m e stic a te d to a h ig h e r d e g re e th a n w e a re , b u t h e is b a d ly a t a loss fo r th a t q u a lity in m a n w h ic h ro o ts h im to th e e a r th a n d d ra w s n e w s tre n g th fro m b e lo w . T h i s c h th o n ic q u a lity is fo u n d in d a n g e ro u s c o n c e n tra tio n in th e G e rm a n ic p eo p les. N a tu ra lly th e A ry a n E u r o p e a n has n o t n o tic e d an y signs o f th is fo r a v ery lo n g tim e , b u t p e rh a p s h e is b e g in n in g to n o tic e it in th e p re s e n t w ar; a n d a g ain , p e rh a p s n o t. T h e J e w has to o little o f th is q u a lity —w h e re has h e his o w n e a r th u n d e rfo o t? T h e m y stery o f e a r th is n o jo k e a n d n o p a ra d o x . O n e o n ly n e e d s to see how , in A m e ric a , th e sk u ll a n d pelv is m e a s u re m e n ts o f a ll th e E u r o p e a n races b e g in to in d ia n iz e th em selv es in th e seco n d g e n e r a tio n o f im m ig ra n ts. T h a t is th e m y stery o f th e A m e ric a n e a rth . »9 T h e so il o f every c o u n try h o ld s som e su c h m y stery . W e h av e a n u n c o n sc io u s re fle c tio n o f th is in th e psyche; ju s t as th e re is a r e la tio n s h ip o f m in d to b o dy, so th e re is a r e la tio n s h ip o f b o d y to e a rth . I h o p e th e re a d e r w ill p a rd o n m y fig u ra tiv e w ay o f sp e a k in g , a n d w ill try to g ra sp w h a t I m e a n . I t is n o t easy to d e ­ scrib e, d e fin ite th o u g h it is. T h e r e a re p e o p le —q u ite a n u m b e r o f th e m —w h o liv e o u ts id e a n d a b o v e th e ir b o d ies, w h o flo at lik e b o d iless sh ad o w s a b o v e th e ir e a r th , th e ir e a r th y c o m p o n e n t, w h ic h is th e ir body. O th e rs live w h o lly in th e ir b o d ie s. As a ru le , th e J e w lives in a m ic a b le r e la tio n s h ip w ith th e e a rth , b u t w ith ­ o u t fe e lin g th e p o w e r o f th e c h th o n ic . H is re c e p tiv ity to th is

1S

seem s to have w eak en ed w ith tim e. T h is m ay e x p lain th e specific n eed of th e Jew to re d u ce e v ery th in g to its m a te ria l b eg in n in g s; h e needs these b eg in n in g s in o rd e r to co u n te rb a la n c e th e d a n ­ gerous ascendency of his tw o c u ltu re s. A little b it of p rim itiv ity does n o t h u r t h im ; o n th e co n trary , I can u n d e rsta n d very w ell th a t F re u d ’s a n d A d le r’s re d u c tio n of ev ery th in g psychic to p rim itiv e sexual wishes a n d pow er-drives has so m eth in g a b o u t it th a t is beneficial a n d satisfying to th e Jew , because it is a form of sim plification. F o r this reason, F re u d is perh ap s rig h t to close his eyes to m y objections. B u t these specifically Jew ish d o ctrin e s are th o ro u g h ly u n satisfy in g to the G e rm an ic m en ta lity ; we still have a g e n u in e b a rb a ria n in us w ho is n o t to b e trifled w ith , a n d w hose m an ifestatio n is n o co m fo rt fo r us a n d n o t a p leasan t way of passing th e tim e. W o u ld th a t p eo p le co u ld le a rn th e lesson of this war! T h e fact is, o u r unconscious is n o t to be g o t a t w ith over-ingenious a n d g ro tesq u e in te rp re ta tio n s. T h e p sy ch o th e ra­ p ist w ith a Jew ish b a c k g ro u n d aw akens in the G erm an ic psyche n o t those w istful a n d w him sical resid ues from th e tim e of D avid, b u t th e b a rb a ria n of yesterday, a b e in g for w hom m atters su d ­ d en ly becom e serious in th e m ost u n p le a sa n t way. T h is a n n o y ­ in g p ec u lia rity of th e b a rb a ria n was a p p a re n t also to N ietzsche —n o d o u b t fro m perso n al ex p erie n ce —w hich is w hy he th o u g h t h ig h ly of th e Jew ish m e n ta lity a n d p reach ed a b o u t d an c in g a n d flying a n d n o t ta k in g th in g s seriously. B u t he overlo o k ed th e fact th a t it is n o t th e b a rb a ria n in us w ho takes things seriously —they becom e serious for h im . H e is g rip p e d by th e d aem on. A n d w ho took th in g s m o re seriously th a n N ietzsche him self? I t seems to m e th a t we sh o u ld take th e p ro b le m o f th e u n ­ conscious very seriously in d eed . T h e tre m e n d o u s co m p u lsio n tow ards goodness a n d th e im m en se m o ra l force of C h ristia n ity are n o t m erely an a rg u m e n t in th e la tte r ’s favour, they are also a p ro o f o f th e stre n g th o f its su ppressed a n d repressed c o u n te rp a rt —th e a n tic h ristia n , b a rb a ria n ele m en t. T h e existence w ith in us o f so m e th in g th a t can tu r n ag ain st us, th a t can becom e a serious m a tte r fo r us, I reg a rd n o t m erely as a dan g ero u s p ecu liarity , b u t as a v a lu ab le a n d co n g en ial asset as w ell. I t is a still u n ­ to u ch ed fo rtu n e , a n u n c o rru p te d treasu re, a sign of y o u th fu l­ ness, an earn est of re b irth . N evertheless, to v alu e th e unconscious exclusively for th e - sake of its positive q u a litie s a n d to re g a rd it as a source o f re v e la tio n w o u ld be fu n d a m e n ta lly w rong.

T h e u n c o n sc io u s is, first a n d fo rem o st, th e w o rld o f th e past, w h ich is a ctiv a te d b y th e on e-sid ed n ess o f th e c o n scio u s a ttitu d e . W h e n e v e r life p ro ceed s o n e-sid ed ly in any g iv e n d ir e c tio n , th e self-re g u la tio n o f th e o rgan ism p ro d u ces in th e u n c o n sc io u s a n a c c u m u la tio n o f a ll th o se factors w h ic h p lay to o sm a ll a p art in the in d iv id u a l's c o n scio u s e x isten ce . F or this reason I h a v e p u t forw ard th e co m p e n sa tio n th eory o f th e u n co n sc io u s as a c o m ­ p le m e n t to th e rep ressio n theory. T h e ro le o f th e u n co n sc io u s is to act c o m p en sa to rily to th e co n scio u s c o n te n ts o f th e m o m e n t. B y th is I d o n o t m ea n th at it sets u p a n o p p o sitio n , fo r th ere are tim es w h e n th e ten d en cy o f th e u n c o n sc io u s c o in c id e s w ith th at o f co n scio u sn ess, n a m ely , w h e n th e co n scio u s a ttitu d e is a p p r o a c h in g th e o p tim u m . T h e n earer it ap p ro a ch es th e o p tim u m , th e m o re th e a u to n o m o u s a c tiv ity o f th e u n co n sc io u s is d im in ish e d , a n d th e m o re its v a lu e sin k s u n til, a t th e m o m e n t w h e n th e o p tim u m is rea ch ed , it falls to zero. W e can say, th en , th at so lo n g as a ll g o es w e ll, so lo n g as a p erson travels th e ro a d th at is, fo r h im , th e in d iv id u a l as w e ll as th e so cia l o p tim u m , th ere is n o talk o f th e u n c o n sc io u s. T h e very fact th at w e in o u r age co m e to sp eak o f th e u n c o n sc io u s at a ll is p r o o f th at e v e r y th in g is n o t in ord er. T h is talk o f th e u n ­ co n scio u s c a n n o t b e la id e n tir e ly at th e d o o r o f a n a ly tic a l psy­ ch o lo g y ; its b e g in n in g s ca n b e traced back to th e tim e o f th e F ren ch R e v o lu tio n , a n d th e first sig n s o f it ca n b e fo u n d in M esm er. I t is tru e th a t in th ose days th ey d id n o t sp eak o f th e u n co n sc io u s b u t o f “a n im a l m a g n e tism .” T h is is n o th in g b u t a red iscovery o f th e p r im itiv e c o n c e p t o f so u l-fo rce o r sou l-stu ff, a w a k en ed o u t o f th e u n c o n sc io u s b y a re a c tiv a tio n o f a rch a ic form s o f th o u g h t. A t th e tim e w h e n a n im a l m a g n e tism was sp rea d in g th r o u g h o u t th e W estern w o rld as a reg u la r e p id e m ic o f ta b le-tu rn in g , a m o u n tin g in th e e n d to a recru d escen ce o f the b e lie f in fetish es (a n im a tio n o f an in a n im a te o b ject), R o b e r t M ayer e lev a ted th e p r im itiv e d y n a m ic id ea o f en erg y , w h ic h rose u p from th e u n c o n sc io u s a n d fo rced itse lf o n h im lik e a n in sp ira ­ tio n —as h e h im s e lf d escrib es—to th e le v e l o f a scien tific co n cep t. M ea n w h ile , th e ta b le -tu r n in g e p id e m ic b u rst its b o u n d s a lto ­ g eth er an d p r o lifera ted in to sp ir itu a lism , w h ic h is a m o d e r n b e ­ lie f in sp irits a n d a r eb irth o f th e sh a m a n istic fo rm o f r e lig io n p ractised by o u r r e m o te forefa th ers. T h is d e v e lo p m e n t o f re­ a c tiv a te d c o n te n ts fro m th e u n c o n sc io u s is s t ill g o in g o n today,

a n d d u rin g

th e la s t fe w

n e x t h ig h e r s ta g e te m s

of

la id

T h eo so p h y

th e

a n d

fo u n d a tio n s

tic u la r o f th e

d e c a d e s h a s le d

to a p o p u la r iz in g

o f d if f e r e n tia tio n — th e A n th ro p o s o p h y .

of

F re n c h

e c le c tic

F re n c h

A t

th e

sam e

p s y c h o p a th o lo g y ,

school o f

h y p n o tis m . T h e s e ,

in v e s tig a te s c ie n tific a lly

th e

sam e

p h en o m en a

m a d e a c c e s s ib le

to

th e

w h ic h

p h e n o m e n a

th e

o f th e

th e o s o p h ic a l

th e s im p le -m in d e d

in

th e

sy s­

tim e ,

a n d in

in

it

p a r­

tu rn ,

c a m e th e m a in s o u rc e s o f a n a ly tic a l p sy c h o lo g y , w h ic h to

o f th e

o r G n o s tic

n o w

b e­

seeks

u n c o n s c io u s —

a n d

G n o s tic

fo rm

s e c ts

o f p o rte n to u s

m y s te rie s . *2

It

is

c h o lo g y

e v id e n t

fro m

th is

d o e s n o t s ta n d

h is to ric a l

s e ttin g .

a c tiv a tio n

o f th e

in

T h e

fa c t

th a t

u n c o n s c io u s

is , i n m y v ie w , c o n n e c t e d le s s a

d e v e lo p m e n t

is o la tio n

p o litic a l r e v o lu tio n

c o lo s s a l e x p lo s io n

w h o le

p la c e

a

a n a ly tic a l

p sy ­

a d e fin ite

d is tu rb a n c e

a ro u n d

th e F re n c h

th a n

o f a ll th e

th is

to o k

w ith

th a t

b u t fin d s its e lf in

th e

o r

y ear

re ­

1800

R e v o lu tio n . T h is w as

re v o lu tio n

in fla m m a b le

o f m in d s .

m a tte r

th a t

It

w as a

h a d

b e en

p i li n g u p e v e r s in c e th e A g e o f E n li g h t e n m e n t . T h e o ffic ia l d e p o ­ s itio n

o f C h ris tia n ity

m en d o u s th e n

o n

im p re s s io n h e

G o e th e , h e

fo u n d c o u ld

by

th e

R e v o lu tio n

o n

th e

u n c o n s c io u s

n o

re s t.

re a lly

In

liv e

th e a n d

m u st have p ag an

g re a te s t

in

G e rm an

b re a th e , a n d

m ad e us,

in

a

tre ­

fo r fro m

o f

th e

age,

H o ld e rlin

h e

c o u ld a t le a s t c ry lo u d ly fo r th e g lo ry th a t w a s G re e c e . A f te r th a t, th e

d e c h ris tia n iz a tio n

p ro g re ss

d e s p ite

th is w e n t th e a n d

m a n ’s v i e w

im p o rta tio n

s h a m a n is m

d h is m ,

o f

o c c a s io n a l

re ta ile d

a p a c e , in c lu d in g

th e

w o rld

H a n d

m ad e

in

th e

S c h o p e n h au e r.

th a t h ig h e r fo rm

p rim e

M y s te ry

ra p id

h a n d

o f s tr a n g e g o d s . B e s id e s th e

a lre a d y m e n tio n e d , by

o f

re a c tio n a rie s .

w ith

fe tis h is m

im p o rt w as B u d ­ re lig io n s

sp re ad

o f s h a m a n is m , C h r is tia n

S c i­

e n c e . T h is p ic tu r e r e m in d s u s v iv id ly o f th e firs t c e n tu r ie s o f o u r e ra , w h e n th e n e e d

R o m e

b eg an

to

to im p o r t n e w

fin d

th e

ones o n

a n d

fe lt

a la r g e s c a le . A s to d a y , th e y

o ld

g o d s rid ic u lo u s

im ­

p o r te d p r e tty w e ll e v e r y th in g t h a t e x is te d , f r o m s q u a lid

s u p e rs titio n

to

th e

n o b le s t

th e lo w e s t, m o s t

flo w e rin g s

o f

th e

h u m a n

s p i r i t . O u r t i m e is f a t a l l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h a t e p o c h , w h e n a g a i n e v e ry th in g fo rth

a n d

w as

n o t

b ro u g h t

in

o rd e r,

b ack

a n d

th in g s

a g a in

th e

u n c o n s c io u s

im m e m o ria lly

b u rie d .

t h in g , t h e c h a o s o f m in d s w a s p e r h a p s le s s p r o n o u n c e d

If

b u rst a n y ­

th e n

th a n

to

sp eak

i t is to d a y . *3

A s

th e

re a d e r w ill

have

re m a rk e d , 16

I

h av e

o m itte d

here o f th e m ed ical aspect of th e unconscious, fo r in stan ce th e q u e stio n o f how th e unconscious p ro d u ces nerv o u s sym ptom s. B u t I have to u c h e d on this q u e stio n in the e a rlie r pages a n d can n ow leave it alo n e. A t all events, I am n o t g e ttin g aw ay fro m m y su b ject, because psy ch o th erap y is co n cern ed n o t o n ly w ith fam ily q u a rre ls, u n h a p p y love-affairs, a n d th e like, b u t w ith th e q u e stio n of psychological a d a p ta tio n in g en eral, a n d th e a tti­ tu d e we are to take tow ards p eo p le a n d things, a n d also tow ards ourselves. A d o c to r w ho treats th e body m u st know th e body, a n d a d o cto r w ho treats th e psyche m u st know th e psyche. If he know s th e psyche o nly u n d e r th e aspect of sex u ality o r of th e p erso n al lu st for pow er, h e know s it o n ly in p a rt. T h is p a r t has to be k n o w n , o f course, b u t th e o th e r p arts are eq u a lly im p o r­ ta n t, a n d p a rtic u la rly th e q u e stio n I have to u c h e d o n h ere c o n ­ c e rn in g th e re la tio n b etw een conscious a n d unconscious. A b io ­ logically tra in e d eye is n o t sufficient to grasp this p ro b le m , for in p ractice it is m o re th a n a m a tte r of eugenics, a n d th e obser­ v a tio n of h u m a n life in th e lig h t of self-preservation a n d p ro p a ­ g atio n is too one-sided. C e rta in ly th e unconscious p resen ts us w ith very d iffe re n t aspects; b u t so fa r we have fixed o u r a tte n ­ tio n too m u c h o n c e rta in o u tw a rd p e cu liarities, for instan ce the arch aic lan g u ag e of th e unconscious, a n d have ta k e n it a ll q u ite literally . T h e lan g u ag e of th e u n conscious is p a rtic u la rly ric h in im ages, as o u r d ream s prove. B u t it is a p rim itiv e language, a fa ith fu l reflectio n of th e c o lo u rfu l, ever-changing w o rld . T h e unco n scio u s is o f like n a tu re ; it is a co m p en sato ry im age o f the w orld. I n m y view i t c a n n o t be m a in ta in e d e ith e r th a t th e u n ­ conscious has a m erely sexual n a tu r e o r th a t it is a m etaphysical reality , n o r can it be ex alted in to a “ u n iv ersal g ro u n d .” I t is to be u n d ersto o d as a psychic p h e n o m e n o n , lik e consciousness. W e n o m o re k n o w w h a t th e psyche is th a n we k now w h a t life is. T h e y a re in te rp e n e tra tin g m ysteries, g iv in g us every reaso n for u n c e rta in ty as to h o w m u c h “ I ” am th e w orld, a n d h o w m u c h “w o rld ” is “ I ” . T h e u n conscious a t any ra te is real, because it works. I lik e to visualize th e unco n scious as a w o rld seen in a m irro r: o u r consciousness p resen ts to us a p ic tu re of th e o u te r w orld , b u t also of th e w o rld w ith in , this b e in g a co m p en sato ry m irro r-im ag e of th e o u te r w o rld . W e c o u ld also say th a t th e o u te r w o rld is a co m p en sato ry m irro r-im ag e of th e in n e r w orld. A t all events w e sta n d b etw ee n tw o w orlds, o r b etw een tw o

totally differen t psychological system s o f perception; b etw een p ercep tion o f extern al sensory stim u li and p ercep tio n o f the u n ­ conscious. T h e p ictu re w e have o f th e o u ter w orld m akes us understand everyth in g as the effect o f physical and p h y sio lo g ica l forces; the p ictu re o f the in n er w orld shows ev ery th in g as th e effect o f sp iritu al agencies. T h e n , it is n o lo n g er the force o f gravity that w elds the stars togeth er, b u t the creative hand o f a dem iu rge; love is n o lon ger the effect o f a sexu al stim u lu s, b u t o f psychic p red estin ation , and so forth. *4 T h e righ t way m ay perhaps be fo u n d in the a p p ro x im a tio n o f th e tw o w orlds. S ch iller th o u g h t h e had fo u n d th is way in art, in w hat he called the “sy m b o l” o f art. T h e artist, th erefore, sh o u ld kn ow the secret o f th e m id d le path. M y o w n exp erien ces led m e to -d o u b t this. I am o f the o p in io n th at the u n io n o f ra­ tio n al and irrational truth is to b e fo u n d n o t so m u ch in art as in the sym bol p e r se; for it is the essence o f th e sym bol to c o n ­ tain b oth the rational and the irrational. It always expresses the o n e th rou gh the other; it com prises b o th w ith o u t b e in g either. *5 H o w does a sym b ol originate? T h is q u estio n brings us to the m ost im p ortan t fu n ctio n o f the u n con sciou s: the sym b o l-cre a tin g fu n c tio n . T h e re is so m eth in g very rem arkable a b o u t this fu n c­ tio n , because it has o n ly a relative existen ce. T h e com pensatory fu n c tio n , on the o th er hand, is the natural, a u tom atic fu n c tio n o f the u n con scious and is con stan tly present. It ow es its ex isten ce to the sim p le fact that all the im p ulses, th oughts, w ishes, and ten d en cies w hich ru n co u n ter to th e ration al o r ien ta tio n o f d a ily life are d e n ie d expression, thrust in to th e backgroun d, a n d finally fall in to the un con sciou s. T h e r e all the things w h ich w e have repressed and suppressed, w h ich w e have d elib era tely ig n ored an d d evalu ed , gradually accu m u late and, in tim e, ac­ q u ire such force that they b eg in to in flu en ce consciousness. T h is in flu en ce w o u ld b e in direct o p p o sitio n to o u r consciou s o rien ta ­ tio n if the un con sciou s consisted o n ly o f repressed an d sup­ pressed m aterial. B u t this, as w e have seen, is n o t the case. T h e u n con sciou s also con tain s the dark springs o f in stin ct and in tu i­ tion , it contain s all those forces w h ich m ere reasonableness, pro­ priety, and the orderly course o f b ou rgeois ex isten ce c o u ld n ev er call aw ake, a ll those creative forces w h ich lead m a n onw ards to n ew d evelop m en ts, n ew form s, and n ew goals. I th erefore call th e influ en ce o f th e u n con sciou s n o t m erely com p lem en tary b u t 18

c o m p en sato ry , because it adds to consciousness e v e ry th in g th a t has b e e n e x c lu d e d by th e d ry in g u p o f th e sp rin g s o f in tu itio n a n d by th e fixed p u r s u it o f a sin g le goal. *6 T h is fu n c tio n , as I say, w orks a u to m a tic a lly , b u t, o w in g to th e n o to rio u s a tro p h y o f in s tin c t in civ ilized m an , it is o fte n to o w eak to sw in g h is on e-sid ed o rie n ta tio n o f consciousness in a n ew d ire c tio n a g a in st th e p ressu res of society. T h e re fo re , a rtifi­ cial aids have alw ays b e e n n e e d e d to b rin g th e h e a lin g forces o f th e u n c o n sc io u s in to play. I t was chiefly th e re lig io n s th a t p e r­ fo rm ed th is task. By ta k in g th e m a n ife sta tio n s o f th e u n c o n sc io u s as d iv in e o r d a e m o n ic signs, re v e latio n s, o r w a rn in g s, th ey offered it som e id e a o r view th a t served as a fa v o u ra b le g ra d ie n t. I n this w ay th ey d ire c te d p a rtic u la r a tte n tio n to a ll p h e n o m e n a o f un co n scio u s o rig in , w h e th e r th e y w ere d ream s, visions, fe e l­ ings, fantasies, o r p ro je c tio n s o f th e sam e in stra n g e o r u n u s u a l p e rso n alities, o r in a n y s trik in g processes o f o rg a n ic a n d in ­ o rg a n ic n a tu re . T h is c o n c e n tra tio n o f a tte n tio n e n a b le d th e u n c o n scio u s c o n te n ts a n d forces to overflow in to co n scio u s life, th e re b y in flu e n c in g i t a n d a lte rin g it. F ro m th is s ta n d p o in t, r e ­ lig io u s ideas a re a n a rtificia l a id th a t b en efits th e u n c o n sc io u s by e n d o w in g its c o m p en sa to ry fu n c tio n —w h ich , if d isre g a rd e d , w o u ld re m a in ineffectiv e—w ith a h ig h e r v a lu e fo r co n scio u s­ ness. F a ith , s u p e rstitio n , o r an y stro n g ly fe e lin g -to n e d id ea gives th e u n c o n sc io u s c o n te n t a v a lu e w h ic h o rd in a rily it does n o t possess, b u t w hich it m ig h t in tim e a tta in , th o u g h in a v ery u n ­ p le a sa n t form . W h e n , th e re fo re , u n c o n sc io u s c o n te n ts a c c u m u ­ la te as a re s u lt of b e in g c o n siste n tly ig n o re d , th ey a re b o u n d to e x e rt a n in flu en c e th a t is p a th o lo g ic a l. T h e r e a re ju s t as m an y n e u ro tic s a m o n g p rim itiv e s as a m o n g civ ilized E u ro p e a n s. H ys­ te ric a l A frican s a re by n o m eans ra re in A frica. T h e s e d isag ree­ a b le m a n ife sta tio n s of th e u n c o n sc io u s a c c o u n t in larg e m easu re fo r th e p rim itiv e fe a r o f d e m o n s a n d th e re s u lta n t rite s o f p ro p itia tio n . a7 T h e c o m p en sa to ry fu n c tio n o f th e u n c o n sc io u s n a tu ra lly does n o t c o n ta in in itself th e conscious v a lu a tio n , a lth o u g h it is w h olly d e p e n d e n t o n th e conscious w ay of th in k in g . T h e u n ­ conscious c an su p p ly , a t m ost, th e germ s o f co n scio u s co n v ictio n s o r of sy m b o l-fo rm atio n . W e c an say, th e re fo re , th a t th e sym bolc re a tin g fu n c tio n of th e u n c o n sc io u s exists a n d does n o t exist, d e p e n d in g o n th e c o n d itio n s. I t sh ares th is p a ra d o x ic a l q u a lity

w ith sym bols in g e n e ra l. O n e is r e m in d e d o f th e sto ry o f th e y o u n g r a b b i w h o w as a p u p il o f K a n t’s. O n e d a y a n o ld r a b b i cam e to g u id e h im b a ck to th e fa ith of his fa th e rs, b u t a ll a r g u ­ m e n ts w e re in v ain . A t la st th e o ld r a b b i d re w fo rth th e o m in o u s shofar, th e h o rn th a t is b lo w n a t th e c u rs in g o f h e re tic s (as h a p ­ p e n e d to S pinoza), a n d a sk ed th e y o u n g m a n if h e k n e w w h a t it was. “ O f c o u rse I k n o w ,” a n sw e re d th e y o u n g m a n coolly, “ it is th e h o r n o f a ra m .” A t th a t th e o ld r a b b i re e le d b a ck a n d fe ll to th e g ro u n d in h o rr o r. a8 W h a t is th e shofar ? I t is also o n ly th e h o r n o f a ra m . S o m e­ tim e s a sy m b o l c a n be n o m o re th a n th a t, b u t o n ly w h e n i t is d e ad . T h e sy m b o l is k ille d w h e n w e su cceed in r e d u c in g th e shofar to a r a m ’s h o rn . B u t a g a in , th ro u g h sy m b o liz a tio n a r a m ’s h o r n c an b e co m e th e shofar. *9 T h e c o m p e n sa to ry f u n c tio n expresses itse lf in q u ite d e fi­ n ite a rra n g e m e n ts of psychic m a te ria l, fo r in s ta n c e in d re a m s, in w h ic h n o th in g “ s y m b o lic ” is to b e fo u n d a n y m o re th a n in a r a m ’s h o rn . I n o rd e r to d isco v e r th e ir sy m b o lic q u a lity a q u ite d e fin ite co n scio u s a ttitu d e is n e e d e d , n a m e ly , th e w illin g n e ss to u n d e r ­ s ta n d th e d re a m -c o n te n t sy m b o lic ally , first o f a ll as a m e re h y ­ p o th esis, a n d th e n leave e x p e rie n c e to d e c id e w h e th e r it is n eces­ sary o r d e sira b le to u n d e rs ta n d th e d re a m in th is w ay. I w ill give a b rie f e x a m p le w h ic h m ay h e lp to e lu c id a te th is d ifficu lt q u e s ­ tio n . A n e ld e rly w o m a n -p a tie n t, w ho, lik e m a n y o th e rs, was u p s e t b y th e p ro b le m o f th e w ar, o n ce to ld m e th e fo llo w in g d re a m w h ic h sh e h a d s h o rtly b e fo re she v isite d m e: 3° S he was singing h y m n s that p u t particular em phasis o n her b elief in Christ, a m o n g others the h y m n that goes: C hrist’s blood an d righteousness shall be My festal dress an d jew ellery; So shall I stan d before the L ord W hen heaven shall g ra n t me my rew ard. T h e y shall be saved a t Ju d g m en t Day W ho p u t th e ir tru st in C hrist alway.

W h ile she was sin g in g it, she saw a b u ll tearing a ro u n d m adly in fr o n t o f the w indow . S u d d e n ly it gave a j u m p a n d b ro ke o ne of its legs. She saw that the b u ll was in agony, and th o u g h t, tu rn in g her eyes away, that so m eb o d y o u g h t to kill it. T h e n she aw o k e. S1 T h e b u l l ’s ag o n y r e m in d e d h e r o f th e to rtu rin g s o f a n im a ls 20

whose u n w illin g w itness she h ad been. She a b o m in ated such things a n d was e x tra o rd in a rily upset by th em because of h e r u n ­ conscious id en tificatio n w ith th e to rtu re d anim al. T h e re was som eth in g in h e r th a t co u ld be expressed by the im age of a n a n i­ m al b ein g to rtu re d . T h is im age was evidently evoked by th e spe­ cial em phasis o n th e b elief in C h rist in the hym ns she was sing­ ing, for it was w hile she was singing th a t the b u ll got excited an d bro k e its leg. T h is o dd c o m b in atio n of ideas im m ediately led to a n association co n cern in g the p ro fo u n d religious d isq u iet she had felt d u rin g th e w ar, w hich shook h e r b elief in the goodness of G od a n d in th e adequacy of th e C h ristian view of the w orld. T h is shock sh o u ld have been assuaged by the em phasis on C hris­ tian faith in th e hym n, b u t instead it aroused th a t an im al elem en t in the unconscious w hich was personified by the b u ll. T h is is ju st the elem en t th a t is rep resen ted by th e C h ristian sym bol as hav in g been co n q u e red a n d offered u p in sacrifice. In the C h ristian mys­ tery it is th e sacrificed L am b, o r m o re correctly, the “little ra m .” In its sister-religion, M ith raism , w hich was also C h ristia n ity ’s m ost successful rival, th e cen tral sym bol of the c u lt was the sacri­ fice n o t of a ra m b u t of a b u ll. TH e usual altarp iece show ed the overcom ing of th e b u ll by th e d iv in e saviour M ithras. W e have, therefore, a very close historical co n n ectio n betw een C h ristian ity a n d th e b u ll sacrifice. C h ristian ity suppressed this an im al ele­ m en t, b u t th e m o m en t th e absolute v alidity of the C h ristian faith is shaken, th a t elem en t is th ru s t in to the fo reg ro u n d again. T h e an im al in stin c t seeks to break out, b u t in so d o in g breaks a leg— in o th e r words, in stin ct cripples itself. F rom the p u rely an im al drives th ere also com e all those factors w hich lim it the sway of instin ct. F rom th e same ro o t th a t produces w ild, u n tam ed , b lin d in stin ct th ere grow u p the n a tu ra l laws a n d c u ltu ra l form s th a t tam e a n d b re a k its p ristin e pow er. B u t w hen the an im al in us is sp lit off from consciousness by b ein g repressed, it m ay easily b u rst o u t in fu ll force, q u ite u n re g u la te d a n d u n co n tro lled . A n o u t­ b u rst of this sort always ends in catastro p h e—the anim al destroys itself. W h a t was orig in ally som eth in g dangerous now becom es som ething to be p itied , som eth in g th a t really needs o u r com ­ passion. T h e trem endous forces u n leashed by the w ar b rin g a b o u t th eir ow n d e stru c tio n because th ere is no h u m an h an d to preserve a n d g uide them . O u r view of th e w o rld has proved too n arro w to ch an n el these forces in to a c u ltu ra l form . 21

3»

H a d I trie d to e x p la in to m y eld erly w o m a n -p a tie n t th a t th e b u ll was a sexual sym bol, she w o u ld have g o t n o th in g o u t o f it; o n th e co n trary , she w o u ld m erely have lost h e r relig io u s p o in t of view a n d b een n o n e th e b e tte r off. I n such cases it is n o t a q u es­ tio n of a n e ith e r /o r e x p la n a tio n . If w e are w illin g to a d o p t a sym bolical s ta n d p o in t, even if o n ly as an hypothesis, we shall see th a t th e d re a m is a n a tte m p t o n th e p a rt of th e u nconscious to b rin g th e C h ristia n p rin c ip le in to h arm o n y w ith its a p p a re n tly irreco n c ilab le o p p o site—a n im a l in stin c t—by m eans of u n d e r ­ sta n d in g a n d com passion. I t is n o accid en t th a t official C h ris­ tia n ity has n o re la tio n to th e an im a l. T h is om ission, p a rtic u la rly s trik in g in co m p ariso n w ith B u d d h ism , is o fte n felt by sensitive peo p le a n d has m oved o n e m o d e rn p o e t to sing of a C h rist w ho sacrifices his life fo r th e sufferings of d u m b anim als. T h e C h ris­ tia n love of y o u r n e ig h b o u r can e x te n d to th e a n im a l too, the anim al in us, a n d can s u rro u n d w ith love a ll th a t a rig id ly a n th ro p o m o rp h ic view o f th e w o rld has cru e lly repressed. By b e in g repressed in to th e unconscious, th e source from w hich it o rig in a te d , th e an im a l in us o n ly becom es m o re beastlike, a n d th a t is n o d o u b t th e reaso n w hy n o re lig io n is so defiled w ith the sp illin g of in n o c e n t b lo o d as C h ristia n ity , a n d w hy th e w o rld has n ev er seen a b lo o d ie r w ar th a n th e w ar of th e C h ristia n n atio n s. T h e repressed a n im a l b u rsts fo rth in its m ost savage form w h e n it com es to th e surface, a n d in th e process of d estro y in g itself leads to in te rn a tio n a l suicide. If every in d iv id u a l h a d a b e tte r re la tio n to th e a n im a l w ith in him , h e w o u ld also set a h ig h e r v alu e on life. L ife w o u ld b e th e ab so lu te, th e su p rem e m o ra l p rin c ip le , a n d he w o u ld react in stin ctiv ely ag ain st an y in s titu tio n o r o rg an izatio n th a t h ad th e p o w er to destroy life on a large scale. 33 T h is d ream , th en , sim p ly shows th e d re a m e r th e valu e of C h ristia n ity a n d con trasts i t w ith a n u n ta m e d force of n a tu re , w hich, le ft to its rag in g , h u rts itself a n d d em an d s pity. A p u rely an aly tical re d u c tio n th a t traced th e relig io u s em o tio n back to th e repressio n o f a n im a l in stin c t w ould, in this p a rtic u la r case, be sterile a n d uselessly d estru ctiv e. If, on th e o th e r h an d , we assert th a t th e d ream is to b e u n d e rsto o d sym bolically a n d is try in g to give th e d re a m e r a n o p p o rtu n ity to becom e reco n ciled w ith h e r­ self, we have tak en th e first step in an in te rp re ta tio n w hich w ill b rin g th e c o n tra d ic to ry values in to h arm o n y a n d o p en u p a new p a th o f in n e r d ev elo p m en t. S u b se q u e n t dream s w o u ld th en , in 22

keep in g w ith this hypothesis, provide th e m eans for u n d e rsta n d ­ ing th e w id er im p licatio n s of th e u n io n of th e an im al com p o ­ n e n t w ith th e h ig h est m o ral a n d in tellectu al achievem ents of the h u m an sp irit. In m y exp erien ce this is w h at actually happens, for the unconscious is co n tin u o u sly com pensatory in its actio n u p o n the conscious situ a tio n o f the m om ent. I t is th erefo re n o t a m a tte r of indifference w ha t o u r conscious a ttitu d e is tow ards th e u n ­ conscious. T h e m ore negative, critical, hostile, o r d isparaging we are, the m o re it w ill assum e these aspects, a n d th e m ore the tru e value of th e unconscious w ill escape us. 34 T h u s th e unconscious has a sym bol-creating fu n c tio n only w hen we are w illin g to recognize in it a sym bolic elem ent. T h e p ro d u cts of the unconscious are p u re n a tu re . N a tu r a m si se q u e m u r du cem , n u n q u a m a b e r ra b im u s f said the ancients. B u t n a tu re is n o t, in herself, a guide, for she is n o t th e re for m a n ’s sake. Ships are n o t g u id ed by th e p h e n o m en o n of m agnetism . W e have to m ake the com pass a g u id e an d , in a d d itio n , allow for a specific co rrectio n , for the needle does n o t even p o in t exactly to th e n o rth . So it is w ith th e g u id in g fu n c tio n of th e unconscious. I t can be used as a source of symbols, b u t w ith the necessary co n ­ scious co rrectio n th a t has to be a p p lie d to every n a tu ra l p h e­ n o m en o n in o rd e r to m ake it serve o u r purpose. 35 M any people w ill find this view extrem ely unscientific, for now here d o they see any re d u c tio n to fu n d a m e n ta l causes, so th a t they could declare w ith certain ty th a t such-and-such a th in g is “n o th in g b u t” this o r that. F o r all those w ho seek to ex p lain things in this way, sexuality as a causative factor is very co n ­ venient. In d eed , in th e case I have d escribed a sexual e x p lan a­ tio n co u ld be offered w ith o u t m uch difficulty. B u t—w h at w ould th e p a tie n t get o u t of it? W h a t use is it to a w om an o n the thresh o ld of old age if h e r p ro b lem is answ ered in this way? O r sho u ld psychotherapy be reserved fo r p a tien ts u n d e r forty? S6 N atu ra lly we can ask in re tu rn : W h a t does th e p a tie n t get o u t of an answ er th a t takes relig io u s pro b lem s seriously? W h a t is a religious p ro b lem anyway? A n d w h at has a scientific m eth o d to do w ith religion? 37 I t seems t o m e th a t th e p a tie n t i s th e p ro p e r a u th o rity to deal w ith qu estio n s of this sort. W h a t does he get o u t of th em 2 “ I f w e ta k e N a tu r e fo r o u r g u id e , w e sh a ll n e v e r go a s tra y .”

h o w e v e r th e y a re an sw e re d ? W h y s h o u ld h e b o th e r h is h e a d a b o u t science? I f h e is a re lig io u s p e rs o n , h is re la tio n s h ip to G o d w ill m e a n in fin ite ly m o re to h im th a n a n y scie n tifica lly satis­ fa c to ry e x p la n a tio n , ju s t as it is a m a tte r o f in d iffe re n c e to a sick m a n h o w h e g ets w ell so lo n g as h e d o es g e t w ell. O u r p a tie n t, in d e e d a n y p a tie n t, is tr e a te d c o rre c tly o n ly w h e n h e is tr e a te d as a n in d iv id u a l. T h i s m e a n s e n te r in g in to h is p a r tic u la r p r o b ­ le m a n d n o t g iv in g h im a n e x p la n a tio n b a se d o n “ s c ie n tific ” p rin c ip le s th a t goes c le a n o v e r his h e a d a lth o u g h i t m a y b e q u ite c o rre c t b io lo g ic a lly . 38 I n m y v ie w th e first d u ty o f a scie n tific p sy c h o lo g ist is to k e e p close to th e liv in g facts o f th e psy ch e, to o b se rv e th e se facts c a re fu lly , a n d th u s o p e n h im s e lf to th o se d e e p e r e x p e rie n c e s o f w h ic h a t p re s e n t h e has a b s o lu te ly n o k n o w le d g e . W h e n , th e r e ­ fo re , th is o r th a t in d iv id u a l psyche h as a se x u a l c o n flic t, a n d a n o th e r o n e has a re lig io u s p ro b le m , th e tr u e s c ie n tis t w ill first o f a ll a c k n o w le d g e th e p a te n t d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n th e m . H e w ill d e v o te h im s e lf as m u c h to th e re lig io u s p ro b le m as to th e s e x u a l p ro b le m , re g a rd le ss o f w h e th e r th e b io lo g is t’s c re d o allo w s ro o m fo r th e gods o r n o t. T h e re a lly u n p r e ju d ic e d in v e s tig a to r w ill n o t le t his s u b je c tiv e c re d o in flu e n c e o r in a n y w ay d is to r t th e m a te r ia l ly in g b e fo re h im , a n d p a th o lo g ic a l m a te ria l is n o e x c e p ­ tio n to th is. N o w ad a y s i t is a p ie c e o f u n w a r r a n te d n a iv e ty to re g a rd a n e u r o tic c o n flic t as e x clu siv e ly a se x u a l o r as e x c lu ­ siv ely a p o w e r p ro b le m . T h i s p ro c e d u re is ju s t as a r b itr a r y as th e a s s e rtio n th a t th e re is n o su c h th in g as th e u n c o n sc io u s a n d n o n e u r o tic conflicts. W h e n w e see a ll r o u n d u s h o w p o w e rfu l id e as c a n be, w e m u s t a d m it th a t th e y m u s t b e e q u a lly p o w e rfu l in th e psyche o f th e in d iv id u a l, w h e th e r o r n o t h e is a w a re o f it. N o o n e d o u b ts th a t s e x u a lity is a p sy ch o lo g ica lly effectiv e fa c to r, a n d i t c a n n o t b e d o u b te d th a t id e as a re p sy ch o lo g ica lly effectiv e fa c to rs too. B e tw e e n th e w o rld o f id e as a n d th e w o rld o f in s tin c t th e re is, h o w e v er, a p o la r d iffe re n c e , so th a t as a r u le o n ly o n e p o le is co n scio u s. T h e o th e r p o le th e n d o m in a te s th e u n c o n ­ scious. T h u s , w h e n a n y o n e in h is c o n sc io u s life is w h o lly u n d e r th e sw ay o f in s tin c t, h is u n c o n sc io u s w ill p la c e ju s t as o n e -sid e d a n e m p h a sis o n th e v a lu e o f ideas. A n d sin ce th e in flu e n c e o f th e u n c o n sc io u s does in th e e n d re a c h c o n scio u sn ess in d ire c tly , a n d se c re tly d e te r m in e s its a ttitu d e , i t gives Tise to a c o m p ro m is e fo r m a tio n ; in s tin c t s u r r e p titio u s ly b e co m e s a fix e d id e a , i t loses

39

4°

4*

4*

43

its reality a n d is blow n u p by th e unconscious in to a one-sided, universal p rin c ip le . W e see the co n trary often h a p p e n in g too, w hen a p erso n consciously takes his stan d on the w orld of ideas a n d is g rad u ally forced to ex perience how his in stin c t secretly makes his ideas th e in stru m e n t of unconscious wishes. As th e co n tem p o rary w orld a n d its new spapers p resen t the spectacle of a gigantic psychiatric clinic, every a tte n tiv e observer has am p le o p p o rtu n ity to see these fo rm u latio n s b ein g enacted before his eyes. A p rin c ip le of card in al im p o rtan ce in stu d y in g these p h en o m en a is th e o n e alread y stressed by analytical psy­ chology: th a t th e unconscious of o n e person is pro jected u p o n a n o th e r person, so th a t the first accuses the second of w h at he overlooks in him self. T h is p rin c ip le is of such alarm in g general v alidity th at everyone w ould do well, before ra ilin g a t others, to sit d o w n a n d consider very carefully w h eth er th e b rick sh o u ld n o t b e th ro w n a t his ow n head. T h is seem ingly irrele v an t aside b rings us to one of th e m ost rem ark ab le features of th e unconscious: it is, as it w ere, p resen t before o u r eyes in all its parts, a n d is accessible to observation a t any tim e. T h e reason fo r this p aradoxical q u a lity is th a t th e u n co n ­ scious, in so far as it is activ ated in any way by sm all am o u n ts of energy, is p ro jected u p o n certain m o re o r less su itab le objects. T h e re ad e r w ill ask how anyone can k now this. T h e existence of p rojectio n s was g rad u ally recognized w hen it was fo u n d th a t the process of psychological a d a p ta tio n was m ark ed by disturbances a n d defects whose cause ap p eared to lie in the object. C loser investigation revealed th a t th e “cause” was a n unconscious co n ­ te n t of th e subject, w hich, because n o t recognized by him , a p ­ p aren tly tra n sferred itself to th e object, a n d th ere m agnified one of its p ecu liarities to such p ro p o rtio n s th a t it seem ed a sufficient cause of th e distu rb an ce. T h e fact of p ro je ctio n was first recognized from disturbances of psychological ad ap tatio n . L ater, it was recognized also from w hat p ro m o ted ad ap tatio n , th a t is to say from th e ap p aren tly positive q u alities of th e object. H e re it was the v alu ab le q u a li­ ties of th e su b je c t’s ow n perso n ality w hich he h ad overlooked th a t a p p e ared in th e o b ject a n d m ade it especially desirable. B u t th e fu ll e x te n t of these pro jections from the unconscious becam e k n o w n th ro u g h analysis of those obscure a n d inexplic-

ab le feelings a n d em o tio n s w h ich give som e in ta n g ib le , m agical q u a lity to c e rta in places, c e rta in m oods of n a tu re , c e rta in w orks of art, a n d also to c e rta in ideas a n d c e rta in people. T h is m agic likew ise com es from p ro je c tio n , b u t a p ro je c tio n of th e collec­ tive unconscious. If it is in a n im a te objects th a t have th e “ m ag­ ical” q u a lity , o ften th e ir m ere statistical in cid en ce is sufficient to p ro v e th a t th e ir significance is d u e to th e p ro je c tio n of a m y th o ­ logical c o n te n t fro m th e collective unconscious. M ostly these co n ten ts are m otifs alread y k n o w n to us from m yths a n d fairy ­ tales. I w o u ld m e n tio n as a n ex am p le th e m ysterious house w here a w itch o r m ag ician dw ells, w here som e m o n stro u s crim e is b e in g c o m m itte d o r has b ee n co m m itted , w h ere th e re is a ghost, w h ere a h id d e n tre a su re lies b u rie d , a n d so on. T h e p ro ­ je c tio n of this p rim o rd ia l im age can be recognized w hen, one day, a person som ehow com es u p o n this m ysterious house—w hen, in o th e r w ords, a re al b u t q u ite o rd in a ry house m akes a m agical im p ressio n u p o n h im . G en erally , too, th e w hole atm o sp h ere of th e place seems sym bolic a n d is, th erefo re, th e p ro je c tio n of a c o h e re n t unconscious system. 44 W e find this p h e n o m e n o n b e a u tifu lly d ev elo p ed in p rim itiv e m an . T h e c o u n try he in h a b its is a t th e sam e tim e th e topog­ ra p h y o f his unconscious. I n th a t stately tree dw ells th e th u n d e rgod; th is sp rin g is h a u n te d by th e O ld W o m an ; in th a t wood the leg en d ary k in g is b u rie d ; n e a r th a t rock n o o n e m ay lig h t a fire because it is th e ab o d e of a d em o n ; in y o n d er p ile of stones dw ell th e an cestral sp irits, a n d w h en an y w om an passes it she m u st q u ic k ly u tte r an a p o tro p a ic fo rm u la lest she becom e p reg n an t, for o n e o f th e sp irits c o u ld easily e n te r h e r body. A ll kinds of objects a n d signs m a rk these places, a n d p ious awe su rro u n d s th e m ark ed spot. T h u s does p rim itiv e m a n dw ell in his la n d a n d a t th e sam e tim e in th e la n d of his unconscious. E veryw here his unconscious ju m p s o u t a t h im , alive a n d real. H ow d iffe re n t is o u r re la tio n s h ip to th e la n d we d w ell in! F eelings to tally stran g e to us acco m p an y th e p rim itiv e a t every step. W h o know s w hat th e cry of a b ird m eans to h im , o r th e sig h t of th a t o ld tree! A w hole w o rld of feelin g is closed to us a n d is rep la c e d by a pale aestheticism . N evertheless, th e w o rld of p rim itiv e feeling is n o t e n tire ly lo st to us; it lives o n in th e unconscious. T h e fu rth e r we rem o v e ourselves fro m it w ith o u r e n lig h te n m e n t a n d o u r ra tio n a l su p erio rity , th e m o re it fades in to th e distance, b u t is 26

m ad e a ll th e m o re p o te n t by e v e ry th in g th a t falls in to it, th r u s t o u t by o u r o n e-sid ed ra tio n a lis m . T h i s lo st b it o f n a tu r e seeks re v e n g e a n d r e tu r n s in faked, d is to rte d fo rm , fo r in sta n c e as a ta n g o e p id e m ic , as F u tu ris m , D a d aism , a n d a ll th e o th e r crazes a n d c ru d itie s in w h ic h o u r age a b o u n d s. 45 E v e n th e p r im itiv e ’s d is tru s t o f th e n e ig h b o u rin g trib e , w h ich w e th o u g h t w e h a d lo n g ago o u tg ro w n th a n k s to o u r g lo b a l o rg a n iz a tio n s, has com e b ack a g a in in th is w ar, sw o llen to g ig a n tic p ro p o rtio n s . I t is n o lo n g e r a m a tte r o f b u r n in g d o w n th e n e ig h b o u rin g villag e, o r o f m a k in g a few h ead s ro ll: w h o le c o u n trie s a re d e v asta ted , m illio n s a re s la u g h te re d . T h e e n em y n a tio n is s trip p e d of every s h re d o f decency, a n d o u r o w n fa u lts a p p e a r in o th e rs, fa n ta stic a lly m ag n ified . W h e re a re th e s u p e r io r m in d s, c a p a b le of re flectio n , today? If th ey e x ist a t all, n o b o d y heeds th e m : in ste a d th e re is a g e n e ra l r u n n i n g a m o k , a u n i­ v ersal fa ta lity a g a in st w hose c o m p e llin g sway th e in d iv id u a l is pow erless to d e fe n d h im se lf. A n d y et th is co lle ctiv e p h e n o m e n o n is th e fa u lt o f th e in d iv id u a l as w ell, fo r n a tio n s a re m a d e u p of in d iv id u a ls. T h e r e f o r e th e in d iv id u a l m u s t c o n sid e r by w h a t m ean s h e c a n c o u n te ra c t th e evil. O u r ra tio n a lis tic a ttitu d e leads us to b e lie v e th a t w e can w o rk w o n d e rs w ith in te r n a tio n a l o r ­ g a n iza tio n s, le g isla tio n , a n d o th e r w e ll-m e a n t devices. B u t in re a lity o n ly a c h a n g e in th e a ttitu d e of th e in d iv id u a l c an b r in g a b o u t a re n e w a l in th e s p irit o f th e n a tio n s. E v e ry th in g b e g in s w ith th e in d iv id u a l. 46 T h e r e a re w e ll-m e a n in g th e o lo g ia n s a n d h u m a n ita r ia n s w h o w a n t to b re a k th e p o w e r p rin c ip le —in o th e rs. W e m u s t b e g in by b re a k in g i t in ourselves. T h e n th e th in g b eco m es c re d ib le . W e s h o u ld lis te n to th e voice o f n a tu r e th a t speaks to us fro m th e u n co n scio u s. T h e n ev ery o n e w ill b e so p re o c c u p ie d w ith h im s e lf th a t he w ill give u p try in g to p u t th e w o rld to rig h ts. 47 T h e la y m a n m ay feel so m ew h a t a sto n ish e d th a t I h a v e in ­ c lu d e d these g e n e ra l p ro b le m s in m y d iscu ssio n of a p sy ch o ­ logical c o n ce p t. T h e y are n o t a d ig re ssio n fro m m y th e m e , as m ig h t a p p e a r, b u t a re a n e ssen tial p a r t of it. T h e q u e s tio n o f th e re la tio n s b e tw e e n conscious a n d u n c o n sc io u s is n o t a sp ecial q u e stio n , b u t o n e w h ic h is b o u n d u p in th e m o st in tim a te w ay w ith o u r h isto ry , w ith th e p re s e n t tim e , a n d w ith o u r v iew o f th e w o rld . V ery m a n y th in g s a re u n c o n sc io u s fo r us o n ly b ecau se o u r view o f th e w o rld allow s th e m n o ro o m ; b ecau se by e d u c a tio n 87

a n d tra in in g w e have n e v e r com e to grips w ith th em , a n d , w h e n ­ ever they cam e to consciousness as occasional fantasies, have in sta n tly su p p ressed them . T h e b o rd e rlin e b etw een conscious a n d unconscious is in large m easu re d e te rm in e d by o u r view of th e w orld. T h a t is w hy w e m u st ta lk a b o u t gen eral p ro b lem s if we w ish to d eal a d e q u a te ly w ith th e co n cep t of th e unconscious. A n d if w e are to g rasp its n a tu re , we m u st co n cern ourselves n o t only w ith c o n te m p o ra ry p ro b lem s, b u t also w ith th e history of th e h u m a n m in d . 48 T h is p reo cc u p a tio n w ith th e unconscious is a p ro b le m of p ractic al as w ell as th eo retic al im p o rtan ce . F o r ju s t as o u r view of th e w o rld u p till now has b e e n a decisive facto r in th e sh ap in g o f th e unco n scio u s a n d its co n te n ts, so th e re m o u ld in g of o u r views in accordance w ith th e activ e forces of th e unconscious is la id u p o n us as a p ractical necessity. I t is im possible to cu re a n eu ro sis p e rm a n e n tly w ith in d iv id u a l n o stru m s, fo r m a n c a n n o t ex ist m erely as a n isolated in d iv id u a l o u tsid e th e h u m a n com ­ m u n ity . T h e p rin c ip le on w h ich he b u ild s his life m u st be one th a t is g en erally accep tab le, o th erw ise it w ill lack th a t n a tu ra l m o ra lity w h ich is in d isp en sab le to m a n as a m e m b e r of th e h erd . B u t such a p rin c ip le , if it is n o t left in th e darkness of the u n ­ conscious, becom es a fo rm u la te d view of th e w o rld w h ich is felt as a necessity by a ll w ho a re in th e h a b it of consciously scru ti­ n iz in g th e ir th o u g h ts a n d actions. T h is m ay ex p lain w hy I have to u c h ed o n q u estio n s each o n e o f w h ich w o u ld n eed fo r its fu ll p re se n ta tio n m o re th a n o n e h e ad a n d m o re th a n one lifetim e.

M IN D A N D E A R T H 1 49

T h e phrase “ m in d a n d e a rth ” has a slightly p o etic rin g . I n ­ v o lu n tarily we th in k , by contrast, of the m in d 2 as su b jec t to the influences of heaven, in m u ch the sam e way as th e C hinese d is­ tin g u ish betw een a j/ien-soul a n d a kwei-soul, th e one re la tin g to heaven, th e o th e r to earth . B u t since we W estern ers know n o th in g a b o u t th e substance of th e m in d , a n d th erefo re can n o t v e n tu re to say w h e th e r it has in it so m eth in g of a heavenly n a tu re a n d so m eth in g of an earth ly n a tu re , we m u st be c o n te n t to speak of tw o d ifferen t ways of view ing, or two d ifferen t aspects of, th e co m p licated p h en o m en o n we call m in d . In stead of p o stu ­ la tin g a heavenly shen-soul, we co u ld reg ard m in d as a causeless a n d creative p rin c ip le ; a n d instead of a kwei-soul, m in d co u ld be conceived as a p ro d u c t of cause a n d effect. T h e la tte r p o in t of view w o u ld be th e m ore a p p ro p ria te in reg ard to o u r them e, for m in d w o u ld th e n be u n d ersto o d as a system of adaptation d e te rm in e d by the conditions o f an earthly e n v ir o n m e n t. I need h ard ly em phasize th a t this causal view m u st necessarily be o n e­ sided, because on ly o n e aspect of the m in d is p ro p erly grasped by it. T h e o th e r side of th e p ro b le m m u st be left o u t of acco u n t as n o t b e lo n g in g to m y them e. 1 [O rig in a lly p u b lis h e d as p a r t o f a n essay, “ D ie E rd b e d in g th e it d e r P sy ch e,” in M ensc.h u n d E rd e, e d ite d b y C o u n t H e r m a n n K ey serlin g (D a rm sta d t, 1927), p p . 83-137. T h a t essay w as la te r d iv id e d a n d la rg e ly re w ritte n as tw o: “ D ie S tr u k tu r d e r Seele,” for th e b ib lio g ra p h ic a l h isto ry of w h ich see its tra n s la tio n , " T h e S tru c ­ tu r e of th e P syche,” C oll. W o rks, V ol. 8, p. 139, n. 1; a n d th e p re s e n t p a p e r, “Seele u n d E rd e ,” in S e e le n p ro b le m e d er G eg en w a rt (Z u ric h , 1931). T h e o rig in a l (1927) p a p e r w as tra n s la te d by C. F. a n d H . G. B aynes as " M in d a n d th e E a r th ,” C o n tr ib u tio n s to A n a ly tic a l P sychology (L o n d o n a n d N ew Y ork, 1928), a n d th a t v ersio n h as b ee n c o n su lte d .— E d i t o r s .] 2 [T h e w o rd u sed th r o u g h o u t th is essay is “ Seele,” w h ich in th is c o n te x t ca n b e tra n s la te d e ith e r as “ m in d ” o r as “ p syche.” C f. T h e S tru c tu re a n d D yn a m ic s o f th e P syche, p. 300, n o te .— T r a n s .]

5°

I n a p p r o a c h in g th e s u b je c t o f o u r d iscu ssio n , i t w o u ld b e as w ell to d e fin e a c c u ra te ly w h a t is to b e u n d e rs to o d b y “ m in d .” C e r ta in view s w o u ld lim it “ m e n ta l” o r “ p sy ch ic ” s tric tly to c o n ­ sciousness. B u t su ch a lim ita tio n w o u ld n o lo n g e r satisfy us to ­ d ay . M o d e rn p s y c h o p a th o lo g y h as in its possession a w e a lth o f o b s e rv a tio n s r e g a r d in g psychic a c tiv itie s th a t a re e n tire ly a n a lo ­ g o u s to c o n sc io u s fu n c tio n s a n d y e t a re u n c o n sc io u s . O n e c a n p e rc e iv e , th in k , feel, re m e m b e r, d e c id e , a n d a c t, u n c o n sc io u sly . E v e ry th in g th a t h a p p e n s in co n scio u sn ess c a n u n d e r c e r ta in c o n ­ d itio n s also o c c u r u n c o n sc io u sly . H o w th is is p o ssib le c an b e st b e see n if o n e p ic tu re s th e psy ch ic fu n c tio n s a n d c o n te n ts as a n ig h t la n d sc a p e o v e r w h ic h th e b e a m o f a s e a rc h lig h t is p la y in g . W h a t ­ e v e r a p p e a rs in th is lig h t o f p e rc e p tio n is co n scio u s; w h a t lies in th e d a rk n e ss b e y o n d is u n c o n sc io u s , th o u g h n o n e th e less re a l a n d effective. I f th e b e a m o f lig h t sh ifts, th e c o n te n ts th a t till n o w w e re co n scio u s s in k in to th e u n c o n sc io u s , a n d n e w c o n te n ts c o m e in to th e lig h te d a re a o f con scio u sn ess. T h e c o n te n ts th a t h a v e v a n is h e d in th e d a rk n e ss c o n tin u e to b e a c tiv e a n d m a k e th em selv es fe lt in d ire c tly , m o st c o m m o n ly as sy m p to m s. F r e u d h as d e s c rib e d th e se s y m p to m a tic d is tu rb a n c e s in T h e P s y c h o ­ p a th o lo g y o f E v e r y d a y L i f e . T h e u n c o n sc io u s a p titu d e s a n d in h ib itio n s c an also b e d e m o n s tra te d e x p e rim e n ta lly , b y m e a n s o f a sso c ia tio n tests. 51 If, th e n , w e ta k e th e in v e stig a tio n s o f p s y c h o p a th o lo g y in to a c c o u n t, th e m in d a p p e a rs as a n e x te n d e d a re a o f p sy ch ic p h e ­ n o m e n a w h ic h a re p a rtly co n scio u s a n d p a rtly u n c o n sc io u s. T h e u n c o n sc io u s p o r tio n o f th e m in d is n o t d ire c tly a c c e s s ib le - o th e r ­ w ise it w o u ld n o t b e u n c o n sc io u s —b u t c a n o n ly b e in f e r r e d fro m th e effects w h ic h u n c o n sc io u s processes h a v e o n co n scio u sn ess. O u r in fe re n c e s c an n e v e r go b e y o n d a n “ as if.” 5* H e r e I m u s t go r a th e r m o re closely in to th e n a tu r e a n d s tru c ­ tu re o f th e u n c o n sc io u s if I a m to d e a l a d e q u a te ly w ith th e c o n ­ d itio n in g o f th e m in d by th e e a r th . I t is a q u e s tio n th a t c o n c e rn s th e v ery b e g in n in g s a n d fo u n d a tio n s o f th e m in d —th in g s th a t fro m tim e im m e m o ria l h av e la in b u r ie d in th e d a rk n e ss, a n d n o t m e re ly th e b a n a l facts o f s e n s e -p e rc e p tio n a n d c o n sc io u s a d a p ta ­ tio n to th e e n v iro n m e n t. T h e s e b e lo n g to th e p sy ch o lo g y o f c o n ­ sciousness, a n d , as I h a v e said , I d o n o t e q u a te c o n sc io u sn ess w ith th e psyche. T h e la tte r is a m u c h m o re c o m p re h e n s iv e a n d d a r k e r

53

54

55

field of ex perience th an the narrow , brig h tly lit area o f c o n ­ sciousness, for th e psyche also includes the unconscious. In a n o th e r essay 3 I tried to give a general view of th e stru c­ tu re of the unconscious. Its contents, the archetypes, are as it were th e h id d e n foundations of the conscious m ind, or, to use an o th er com parison, th e roots w hich th e psyche has sunk n o t only in the earth in th e narro w er sense b u t in the w orld in general. Archetypes are systems of readiness for action, a n d a t the same tim e images a n d em otions. T h e y are in h e rite d w ith the brainstru c tu re—indeed, they are its psychic aspect. T h e y represent, on the one hand, a very strong instinctive conservatism , w hile on the o th e r h a n d they are the m ost effective m eans conceivable of instinctive ad ap tatio n . T h e y are thus, essentially, the chthonic p o rtio n o f th e psyche, if we m ay use such an expression—th a t p o r­ tio n th ro u g h w hich th e psyche is attached to n a tu re , o r in which its lin k w ith th e earth an d the w orld appears at its m ost tangible. T h e psychic influence of th e earth an d its laws is seen m ost clearly in these p rim o rd ia l images. T h is p ro b lem is n o t only very com plicated b u t also a very sub tle one. W e shall have to reckon w ith q u ite u n u su al diffi­ culties in d ealin g w ith it, a n d the first of these is th a t the arch e­ type an d its fu n ctio n m ust be u n d erstood far m ore as a p a rt of m an ’s prehistoric, irratio n a l psychology than as a ratio n ally con­ ceivable system. Perhaps I may be allow ed a com parison: it is as though we h ad to describe an d ex p lain a b u ild in g whose u p p er storey was erected in the n in e te e n th century, the g ro u n d floor dates back to th e six teen th cen tu ry , a n d careful ex am in atio n of the m asonry reveals th at it was reco n stru cted from a tow er b u ilt in the eleventh century. In the cellar we com e u p o n R om an foundations, an d u n d e r the cellar a choked-up cave w ith neo­ lithic tools in the u p p er layer an d rem n an ts of fauna from the same p erio d in the low er layers. T h a t w ould be the p ic tu re of o u r psychic stru ctu re. W e live on th e u p p e r storey and are only aw are th at the low er storey is slightly old-fashioned. As to w hat lies b en eath the e a rth ’s surface, of th a t we rem ain totally u n ­ conscious. T h is is a lam e analogy, like all analogies, for in the psyche there is n o th in g th a t is ju st a dead relic. E verything is alive, a n d 3 [“T he Structure of the Psyche" (cf. supra, n. i), which immediately preceded the present essay in Seelenprobleme der Gegenwarl.—E d i t o r s .]

S1

o u r u p p e r storey, consciousness, is c o n tin u a lly in flu en c ed b y its liv in g a n d active fo u n d atio n s. L ik e th e b u ild in g , it is su stain ed a n d su p p o rte d b y th em . A n d ju s t as th e b u ild in g rises freely above th e e a rth , so o u r consciousness stands as if ab o v e th e e a rth in space, w ith a w ide p ro sp e ct b efo re it. B u t th e d e e p e r w e descend in to th e house th e n a rro w e r the h o rizo n becom es, a n d th e m o re we find ourselves in th e darkness, till finally we reach th e n a k e d bed-rock, a n d w ith it th a t p reh isto ric tim e w h en r e in ­ d e e r h u n te rs fo u g h t for a b a re a n d w retch ed existence against th e e lem en tal forces o f w ild n a tu re . T h e m en of th a t age w ere s till in fu ll possession o f th e ir a n im a l instincts, w ith o u t w h ich life w o u ld have b e en im possible. T h e free sway of in s tin c t is n o t c o m p a tib le w ith a stro n g ly d e v elo p ed consciousness. T h e consciousness of p rim itiv e m a n , lik e th a t of th e ch ild , is sporadic, a n d his w orld, like th e c h ild ’s, is very lim ited . In d e e d , in ac­ co rd an ce w ith p h y lo g en etic law, w e still re c a p itu la te in c h ild ­ h o o d rem iniscences o f th e p re h isto ry of th e race a n d of m a n k in d in gen eral. P h y lo g en etically as w ell as o n to g en etically w e have g ro w n u p o u t o f th e d a rk confines o f th e e a rth ; h en ce th e factors th a t affected us m o st closdly b ecam e archetypes, a n d it is these p rim o rd ia l im ages w h ich in flu en ce us m o st d ire ctly , a n d th e re ­ fore seem to be th e m ost p o w erfu l. I say “seem ” because w h a t seems to us th e m o st im p o rta n t th in g psychically is n o t neces­ sarily th e m o st im p o rta n t, o r a t least n eed n o t re m a in so. 56 W h a t, th e n , a re th e m ost im m e d ia te archetypes? T h is q u es­ tio n leads us stra ig h t to th e p ro b le m of arch ety p al fu n c tio n in g , a n d so to th e h e a rt of th e difficulty. F ro m w h a t s ta n d p o in t s h o u ld w e an sw er th e q u estio n ? F ro m th a t of th e ch ild , o r o f th e p rim itiv e , o r of o u r a d u lt m o d e rn consciousness? H o w can we recognize an archetype? A n d w h e n is it necessary to have r e ­ co u rse to this hypothesis a t all? 57 I w ould like to suggest that every psychic reaction w hich is o u t o f proportion to its precipitating cause should be investi­ gated as to w hether it may be conditioned at the same tim e by an archetype.* 58 W h a t I m e a n b y th is can b est b e illu s tra te d by a n exam ple. S uppose a c h ild is a fra id o f its m o th e r. W e have first to assure ourselves th a t th e re is n o ra tio n a l cause fo r this, a b a d con* [Cf. " I n s tin c t a n d th e U n c o n sc io u s,” in T h e S tr u c tu r e a n d D y n a m ic s o f th e P sych e.— E d i t o r s .]

science, fo r in sta n c e , o n th e c h ild ’s p a rt, o r v io le n c e o n th e m o th e r’s, o r s o m e th in g else th a t m ay hav e h a p p e n e d to th e ch ild. I f th e re is n o th in g o f th is k in d to e x p la in th e fear, th e n I w o u ld suggest th a t th e s itu a tio n b e re g a rd e d as a n a rc h e ty p a l o n e. U su a lly such fears o c c u r a t n ig h t, a n d a re w o n t to show th em selves in d re a m s. T h e c h ild n ow d re a m s o f th e m o th e r as a w itc h w h o p u rsu e s c h ild re n . T h e conscious m a te ria l b e h in d th ese d re a m s is in som e cases th e sto ry of H a n se l a n d G re te l. I t is th e n said th a t th e c h ild sh o u ld n o t h av e b e e n to ld su ch a fairy tale, b ecau se th e ta le is th o u g h t to b e th e cau se o f th e fear. T h a t is a n e rro n e o u s ra tio n a liz a tio n , b u t it n e v erth ele ss c o n ta in s a core o f tr u th in so fa r as th e w itc h -m o tif is th e m o st s u ita b le e x p ressio n fo r c h ild ish fears, a n d alw ays has b e e n . T h a t is w hy such fairy tales exist. C h ild r e n ’s n ig h t-te rro rs a re a ty p ical e v e n t th a t is c o n sta n tly re p e a tin g itse lf a n d has alw ays b e e n e x p ressed in ty p ical fa iry ta le m o tifs. 59 B u t fairy tales a re o n ly in fa n tile form s o f leg en d s, m y th s, a n d su p e rstitio n s ta k e n fro m th e “ n ig h t re lig io n ” o f p rim itiv e s. W h a t I call “ n ig h t re lig io n ” is th e m ag ical fo rm o f re lig io n , th e m e a n in g a n d p u rp o s e o f w h ic h is in te rc o u rs e w ith th e d a rk pow ers, devils, w itches, m agicians, a n d sp irits. J u s t as th e c h ild ­ ish fa iry ta le is a p h y lo g e n e tic r e p e titio n o f th e a n c ie n t n ig h t re lig io n , so th e c h ild is h fe a r is a re -e n a c tm e n t o f p r im itiv e psy­ chology, a p h y lo g e n e tic relic. 60 T h e fa c t th a t th is re lic displays a c e rta in v ita lity is in n o sense a b n o rm a l, fo r n o c tu rn a l fears, ev en in a d u lts liv in g u n d e r c iv ilized c o n d itio n s , a re n o t n ecessarily a n a b n o rm a l p h e n o m e ­ n o n . O n ly a n in te n sifie d d e g re e o f n ig h t-fe a r c a n b e re g a rd e d as a b n o rm a l. T h e q u e s tio n th e n is, u n d e r w h a t c irc u m sta n c e s is th is n ig h t-fe a r increased? C a n th e in crease b e e x p la in e d solely b y th e a rc h e ty p e o f th e w itc h e x p ressed in th e fa iry ta le , o r m u s t som e o th e r e x p la n a to ry cause b e ad d u ce d ? W e sh o u ld m a k e th e a rc h e ty p e re s p o n sib le o n ly fo r a d efi­ n ite , m in im a l, n o rm a l d e g re e o f fear; a n y p ro n o u n c e d in crease, fe lt to b e a b n o rm a l, m u s t have special causes. F re u d , as w e know , e x p la in s th is fe a r as d u e to th e c o llisio n o f th e c h ild ’s in c e stu o u s te n d e n c y w ith th e in c est p ro h ib itio n . H e th u s e x ­ p la in s it fro m th e s ta n d p o in t of th e c h ild . I h av e n o d o u b t th a t c h ild re n c a n have “ in c e stu o u s” te n d e n c ie s in th e e x te n d e d sense u sed by F re u d , b u t I d o u b t v ery m u c h w h e th e r th ese te n d e n c ie s

can b e a ttr ib u te d w ith o u t m o re a d o to th e c h ild ’s psychology su i generis. T h e r e are very g o o d reasons fo r th e view th a t th e childpsyche is still u n d e r th e spell o f th e p a re n ts’ psyche, especially th e m o th e r’s, a n d to such a d eg ree th a t th e psyche of th e ch ild m u st b e re g a rd e d as a fu n c tio n a l ap p en d ag e of th a t of th e p aren ts. T h e psychic in d iv id u a lity of th e c h ild develops only later, a fte r a re lia b le c o n tin u ity o f consciousness has b e e n estab ­ lished. T h e fact th a t th e c h ild beg in s by sp eak in g of him self in th e th ird p erso n is in m y view a clear p ro o f of th e im p e rso n a lity o f his psychology. 62 I am th ere fo re in c lin e d to e x p la in th e possible incestu o u s tend en cies o f th e c h ild r a th e r fro m th e s ta n d p o in t of th e psy­ chology of th e p aren ts, ju s t as every ch ild ish n eu ro sis sh o u ld be c o n sid e red first a n d fo rem o st in th e lig h t of th e p a re n ta l psy­ chology. T h u s , a fre q u e n t cause o f in creased in fa n tile te rro rs is a n especial “co m p lex -p ro n en ess” o n th e p a rt of th e p a ren ts, th a t is, th e ir rep ressio n a n d d isre g ard of c e rta in v ital p ro b lem s. A ny­ th in g th a t falls in to th e u n co n scio u s takes o n a m o re o r less arch aic form . If, for exam ple, th e m o th e r represses a p a in fu l a n d te rrify in g com plex, she w ill feel it as a n evil s p irit p u rs u in g h e r —a “sk ele to n in th e c u p b o a rd ,’’ as th e E n g lish say. T h is fo rm u la ­ tio n shows th a t th e co m p lex has alre a d y a c q u ire d a rc h e ty p a l force. I t sits o n h e r lik e a n in c u b u s, she is to rm e n te d by n ig h t­ m ares. W h e th e r she tells “ n ig h tm are-sto ries” to th e c h ild o r n o t, she n o n e th e less infects th e c h ild a n d aw akens in its m in d arch ety p al te rro r im ages fro m h e r ow n psychology. P erh ap s she has e ro tic fantasies a b o u t a m a n o th e r th a n h e r h u sb a n d . T h e c h ild is th e v isib le sign of th e ir m a rria g e tie, a n d h e r resistance to th e tie is u n co n scio u sly d ire c te d ag ain st th e ch ild , w ho has to b e re p u d ia te d . O n th e arch a ic level th is co rresponds to childm u rd e r. I n this w ay th e m o th e r becom es a w icked w itch w ho d ev o u rs ch ild re n . 63 As in th e m o th e r, so in th e c h ild th e possibilities of arch aic re p re s e n ta tio n lie d o rm a n t, a n d th e sam e cause w h ich first p ro ­ d u c e d a n d laid d o w n th e arch ety p e d u rin g th e course of h u m a n h isto ry reactiv ates i t ag ain a n d a g ain today. 64 T h is ex am p le of th e m a n ife sta tio n of a n arch ety p e in a c h ild has n o t b e en chosen a t ra n d o m . W e beg an w ith th e q u e stio n of w h a t a re th e m o st im m e d ia te archetypes. T h e m o st im m e d ia te is th e p rim o rd ia l im age o f th e m o th e r; she is in every w ay th e

n earest a n d m ost po w erfu l experience, a n d the one w hich occurs d u rin g th e m ost im pressionable p e rio d of m an's life. Since c o n ­ sciousness is as yet on ly p o o rly d eveloped in ch ild h o o d , o n e c a n ­ n o t speak of an “ in d iv id u a l” ex p erien ce at all. O n the co n trary , the m o th e r is a n arch ety p al ex p erien ce; she is ex p erien ced by the m ore o r less unconscious ch ild n o t as a definite, in d iv id u a l fem in in e p erso n ality b u t as th e m o th er, a n arch ety p e charged w ith an im m en sity of possible m eanings. As life proceeds the p rim o rd ia l im age fades a n d is rep laced by a conscious, relatively in d iv id u a l im age, w hich is assum ed to be th e only m other-im age we have. B u t in the unconscious th e m o th e r always rem ain s a p ow erfu l p rim o rd ia l im age, c o lo u rin g a n d even d e te rm in in g th ro u g h o u t life o u r relatio n s to w om an, to society, to the w o rld of feeling a n d fact, yet in so su b tle a way that, as a ru le , th e re is n o conscious p e rc ep tio n of the process. W e th in k all this is only a m etap h o r. B u t it becom es a very concrete fact w hen a m an m arries a w ife only because in som e way she resem bles his m o th er, o r else because she very d efinitely does not. M o th er G erm an ia is fo r th e G erm ans, like la douce France for the F rench, a figure of th e u tm o st im p o rtan ce b e h in d th e political scene, w ho c o u ld be overlooked only by b lin k e re d intellectu als. T h e all-em bracing w om b of M o th e r C h u rc h is a n y th in g b u t a m etap h o r, a n d th e sam e is tru e o f M o th e r E arth , M o th e r N a tu re , an d “m a tte r” in general. 65 T h e arch ety p e of th e m o th e r is th e m ost im m e d ia te one for the child. B u t w ith th e d ev elo p m en t of consciousness th e fa th e r also enters his field of vision, a n d activates a n arch ety p e whose n a tu re is in m any respects opposed to th a t of th e m o th er. J u s t as the m o th e r arch ety p e corresponds to the C hinese y in , so the fath er arch ety p e corresponds to th e yang. I t d eterm in es o u r re la ­ tions to m an, to th e law a n d th e state, to reason a n d th e sp irit a n d th e dynam ism o f n a tu re . “ F a th e rla n d ” im plies b o u n d aries, a defin ite localization in space, w hereas the la n d itself is M o th e r E arth , q u iesc en t a n d fru itfu l. T h e R h in e is a fath er, as is the N ile, th e w in d a n d storm , th u n d e r a n d lig h tn in g . T h e fa th e r is th e “a u c to r” a n d rep resen ts a u th o rity , hence also law a n d the state. H e is th a t w hich m oves in th e w orld, like th e w ind; the guid e a n d cre a to r of in v isib le th o u g h ts a n d airy images. H e is the creative w in d -b re ath —th e sp irit, p n eu m a, atm an. 66 T h u s th e fath er, too, is a p o w erfu l arch ety p e d w ellin g in the

psyche of th e ch ild . A t first he is the fath er, an all-encom passing G od-im age, a d y n am ic p rin c ip le . In th e course of life this a u th o rita ria n im ago recedes in to th e b ack g ro u n d : th e fa th e r tu rn s in to a lim ite d a n d o fte n all-to o -h u m an perso n ality . T h e father-im ago, o n th e o th e r h a n d , develops to the full its p o te n tia l significance. J u s t as m an was la te in d iscovering n a tu re , so he only g ra d u a lly discovered law, d u ty , resp o n sib ility , th e state, th e sp irit. As th e nascen t consciousness becom es m o re cap ab le of u n d e rsta n d in g , th e im p o rta n c e o f th e p a re n ta l p erso n ality dw indles. T h e place of th e fa th e r is tak en by the society of m en , a n d th e place of th e m o th e r by th e fam ily. 67 I t w o u ld be w rong, in m y view , to say th a t all those th in g s w hich take th e place o f th e p a re n ts are n o th in g b u t a s u b stitu te fo r th e u n a v o id a b le loss o f th e p rim o rd ia l p a re n ta l im agos. W h a t ap p ears in th e ir stead is n o t ju s t a su b stitu te , b u t a re a lity th a t is in terw o v en w ith th e p a re n ts a n d has im pressed itself on th e m in d of th e c h ild th ro u g h th e p a re n ta l im ago. T h e m o th e r w h o gives w arm th , p ro te c tio n , a n d n o u ris h m e n t is also th e h e a rth , th e sh e lte rin g cave o r h u t, a n d th e s u rro u n d in g v eg eta­ tio n . She is th e p ro v id e n t field, a n d h e r son is th e g odlike g rain , th e b ro th e r a n d frie n d of m an. She is th e m ilk-giving cow a n d th e h erd . T h e fa th e r goes a b o u t, talks w ith o th e r m en , h u n ts, travels, m akes w ar, lets his b a d m oods loose like th u n d ersto rm s, a n d a t th e b eh est of in v isib le th o u g h ts h e su d d en ly changes the w h o le situ a tio n like a tem pest. H e is th e w ar a n d th e w eapon, th e cause of all changes; he is th e b u ll p ro v o k ed to violence o r p ro n e to a p a th e tic laziness. H e is th e im age of all th e h e lp fu l o r h a rm fu l e lem en tal pow ers. 68 AU these th ings are th e early im m ediacies of th e c h ild ’s life, im p in g in g o n him , d ire c tly o r in d irectly , th ro u g h th e p aren ts. A n d as th e p a re n ta l im ago sh rin k s a n d becom es h u m an ized , all those things, w h ich a t first seem ed o n ly lik e a b a c k g ro u n d o r lik e m a rg in a l effects, b e g in to stan d o u t m o re clearly. T h e e a rth h e plays w ith , th e fire he w arm s h im self at, th e r a in a n d w in d th a t ch ill h im , w ere always realities, b u t because of his tw ilig h t consciousness th ey w ere seen a n d u n d e rsto o d o n ly as q u a litie s of th e p aren ts. T h e n , as o u t of a m ist, th e re em erge the m a te ria l a n d d y n am ic aspects of th e e a rth , rev e alin g them selves as pow ers in th e ir ow n rig h t, a n d n o lo n g e r w ea rin g th e m asks of th e

parents. T h e y are thus n o t a su b stitu te b u t a reality that cor­ responds to a high er level of consciousness. 69 N evertheless som eth in g is lost in this d evelop m en t, and that is the irreplaceable fe e lin g of im m ed iate oneness w ith the par­ ents. T h is fe e lin g is n o t ju st a sen tim en t, b u t an im p ortant psy­ chological fact w h ich L evy-Bruhl, in an altogeth er different context, has called p a r tic ip a tio n m y stiq u e . T h e fact d en o ted by this n ot im m ed iately understandable expression plays a great role in the psychology o f p rim itives as w ell as in analytical psy­ chology. T o p u t it briefly, it m eans a state of id e n tity in m u tu a l unconsciousness. Perhaps I sh ou ld e x p la in this further. If the same unconscious co m p lex is constellated in tw o p eop le at the same tim e, it produces a rem arkable em o tio n a l effect, a projec­ tion, w h ich causes eith er a m u tu al attraction or a m u tu a l rep u l­ sion. W h en I and another person have an un con sciou s rela tio n to the sam e im p ortan t fact, I becom e in part id en tica l w ith him , and because o f this I o rien t m yself to h im as I w o u ld to the com ­ p lex in q u estion w ere I conscious o f it. 7° T h is state o f p a r tic ip a tio n m y s tiq u e obtains b etw een parents and child ren. A w ell-kn ow n exam p le is the stepm oth er w ho identifies herself w ith the daughter and, through her, m arries the son-in-law; or the father w ho thinks he is co n sid erin g his so n ’s w elfare w hen he n aively forces him to fu lfil his—the father’s— wishes, for instance in marriage or in the ch oice o f a profession. T h e son w ho identifies h im self w ith the father is an eq u ally w ellknow n figure. B u t there is an especially close b o n d b etw een m other an d daughter, w hich in certain cases can actually be dem onstrated by the association m eth od .5 A lth o u g h the p a r tic i­ p a tio n m y stiq u e is an unconscious fact to the person concerned, he nevertheless feels the change w hen it n o lon ger exists. T h e re is always a certain difference b etw een the psychology o f a m an w hose father is still liv in g and on e w hose father is dead. So lo n g as a p a r tic ip a tio n m y stiq u e w ith the parents persists, a relatively in fan tile style o f life can be m ain tain ed . T h r o u g h the p a r tic ip a ­ tion m y stiq u e life is p u m p ed in to us from outsid e in the form of unconscious m otivation s, for w hich, since they are un con scious, no resp on sib ility is felt. Because o f this in fa n tile un consciousness 5 ["Statistical Investigations on W ord-A ssociations and on F am ilial A greem ent in R eaction T y p e am ong U neducated Persons," by Em m a Furst, in S tu d ies in W o rd A ssociation (trans. b y Eder). — E d i t o r s .]

the b u rd e n of life is lightened, o r a t least seems so. O ne is n o t alone, b u t exists unconsciously in twos or threes. In im agination the son is in his m o th e r’s lap, protected by the father. T h e father is reb o rn in the son—at least as a lin k in the chain of etern al life. T h e m o th er has reju v en ated h er father in h e r y outhful h u sb an d a n d so has n o t lost h e r youth. I need n o t cite exam ples from p rim itiv e psychology. A reference to them m ust suffice. 71 All this drops away w ith the broad en in g an d intensification of consciousness. T h e resu lta n t extension of the p aren tal imagos over the face of the w orld, or rath e r, the w o rld ’s b reaking th ro u g h the mists of childhood, severs the unconscious u n io n w ith the parents. T h is process is even perform ed consciously in the prim itive rites of in itia tio n in to m anhood. T h e archetype of the parents is thereby driven in to the background; it is, as we say, no longer “constellated.” Instead, a new k in d of participa­ tion m ystique begins w ith the tribe, society, C hurch, o r n ation. T h is p articip atio n is general and im personal, and above all it gives unconsciousness very little scope. If anyone should incline to be too unconscious an d too guilelessly trusting, law and society will quickly shake him in to consciousness. B u t sexual m atu rity also brings w ith it th e possibility of a new personal participation m ystique, a n d hence of replacing th at p a rt of the personality w hich was lost in identification w ith the parents. A new archetype is constellated: in a m an it is the archetype of wom an, and in a wom an the archetype of m an. T hese two figures w ere likewise hid d en b eh in d the m ask of the p aren tal imagps, b u t now they step fo rth undisguised, even though strongly in ­ fluenced by the paren tal imagos, often overw helm ingly so, I have given the fem inine archetype in m an the nam e “an im a,” a n d the m asculine archetype in w om an the nam e “anim us,” for specific reasons w hich I shall discuss later.8 7* T h e m ore a m an or w om an is unconsciously influenced by the p aren tal imago, the m ore surely w ill the figure of the loved one be chosen as e ith e r a positive o r a negative substitute for the parents. T h e far-reaching influence of the p aren tal im ago should n o t be considered abnorm al; on the contrary, it is a very n orm al a n d therefore very com m on phenom enon. I t is, indeed, very im ­ p o rta n t th at this should be so, for otherw ise the parents are no t e C f. T w o Essays on A n a ly tic a l P syc h o lo g y, p ars. 2g6ff.

73

74

75

reb o rn in the children, and the p aren tal imago becomes so com ­ pletely lost th a t all co ntinuity in the life of the individual ceases. H e cannot connect his childhood w ith his a d u lt life, an d there­ fore rem ains unconsciously a child—a situation that is th e best possible fo u n d ation for a neurosis. H e w ill th en suffer from all those ills th at beset parvenus w ith o u t a history, be they in d i­ viduals or social groups. It is norm al th at children should in a certain sense m arry th eir parents. T h is is ju st as im portant, psychologically, as the biological necessity to infuse new blood if the ancestral tree is to produce a good breed. I t guarantees continuity, a reasonable prolongation of the past into the present. O nly too m uch or too little in this direction is harm ful. So long as a positive or negative resem blance to the parents is the deciding factor in a love choice, the release from the parental imago, an d hence from childhood, is n o t com plete. A lthough childhood has to be b ro u g h t along for the sake of historical continuity, this should n o t be at the expense of fu rth er developm ent. W hen, towards m iddle life, the last gleam of c hild­ hood illusion fades—this it m ust be ow ned is tru e only of an alm ost ideal life, for m any go as children to th eir graves—then the archetype of the m ature m an or wom an emerges from the parental imago: an image of m an as wom an has know n him from the b eginning of tim e, and an image of wom an th at m an carries w ithin him eternally. T h e re are indeed m any m en w ho can describe exactly, even to individual details, the image of w om an th at they carry in th eir m inds. (I have m et few wom en who could give as exact a picture of the m asculine archetype.) Ju st as the prim ordial image of the m o th er is a com posite im age of all previous m others, so the image of the anim a is a supra-individual image. So tru e is this th at the image reveals closely corresponding features in m en who are individually very different, and one can alm ost recon­ struct from it a definite type of woman. T h e m ost striking fea­ ture ab o u t the anim a-type is th at the m aternal elem ent is entirely lacking. She is the com panion and friend in her favour­ able aspect, in h e r unfavourable aspect she is the courtesan. O ften these types are described very accurately, w ith all their hu m an an d daem onic qualities, in fantastic rom ances, such as R id er H aggard’s She and W isdom ’s D aughter, B enoit’s L ’A tlan-

tide, an d , fragm entarily, in th e second p a rt o f F aust, ia th e figure of H elen . B u t the anim a-type is p resen ted in th e m ost succinct a n d p re g n a n t fo rm in th e G nostic leg en d of Sim on M agus, a carica tu re of w hom ap p ears in th e A cts oi the A postles.7 Sim on M agus was always acco m p an ied o n his travels by a girl, whose nam e was H elen . H e h a d fo u n d h e r in a b ro th el in T y re; she was a re in c a rn a tio n of H e le n of T ro y . I do n o t know w h e th er G o e th e ’s F au st-H elen m o tif was consciously d e ­ riv e d from the Sim on legend. A sim ila r re la tio n sh ip occurs in R id e r H ag g ard ’s W isd o m ’s D a u g h ter, w h ere w e can b e certain th a t th e re was n o conscious c o n tin u ity . 76 T h e absence of th e m a te rn a l e le m e n t d em o n strates, on the o ne h an d , th e com plete release fro m th e m other-im ago, and, on th e o th er, the idea of a p u re ly h u m a n re la tio n sh ip lacking the n a tu ra l incentive of p ro creatio n . T h e o v erw h elm in g m ajo rity of m en on the p resen t c u ltu ra l level n e v er advance beyond the m a te rn a l significance of w om an, a n d this is th e reaso n why the a n im a seldom develops b ey o n d the in fa n tile , p rim itiv e level of th e p ro stitu te . C onsequently, p ro s titu tio n is o n e o f th e m a in by-products of civilized m arriage. In th e legend o f Sim on, how ­ ever, a n d in the second p a rt of Faust a n im a sym bols of com ­ p le te m a tu rity a re found. T h is g ro w th of a d u lth o o d is synony­ m ous w ith grow th away from n a tu re . C h ristia n a n d B u d d h ist m onastic ideals g ra p p le d w ith th e sam e p ro b lem , b u t always th e flesh was sacrificed. Goddesses a n d dem igoddesses took th e place of the personal, h u m a n w om an w ho sh o u ld carry th e p ro je c tio n of th e anim a. 77 H e re w e touch on h ighly co n tro v ersial te rrito ry in to w hich I do n o t w ish to v e n tu re fu rth e r a t this p o in t. W e shall d o b e tte r to re tu rn to th e sim p le r p ro b le m of how we can recognize the existence o f such a fe m in in e archetype. 78 As long as an archetype is n o t p ro jected a n d n o t loved o r h a ted in an object, it is still w holly id e n tic al w ith th e in d iv id u a l, w ho is th u s com pelled to act it o u t him self. A m an w ill th e n a ct o u t his ow n anim a. W e have a w ord th a t ap tly characterizes this a ttitu d e : it is “ an im o sity .” T h is expression can b e st b e in te r­ p re te d as “ an im a possession,” d e n o tin g a c o n d itio n of u n c o n ­ tro lled em otion. T h e w ord “an im o sity ” is used o n ly fo r u nI 8:9-24. For the Helen legend see Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 9, xxiii.

p lea sa n t em o tio n s, b u t ac tu ally th e a n im a can in d u c e p leasan t ones as w ell.8 79 S elf-control is a typically m asc u lin e ideal, to be ach iev ed by th e rep ressio n of feeling. F eelin g is a specifically fe m in in e v irtu e , a n d because a m a n in try in g to a tta in his ideal of m a n h o o d re ­ presses all fe m in in e tra its—w h ich a re really p a rt of h im , ju s t as m ascu lin e tra its a re p a rt o f a w o m an 's psychology—h e also r e ­ presses c e rta in em otions as w om anish weakness. In so d o in g h e piles u p effem inacy o r s e n tim e n ta lity in th e u nconscious, a n d this, w h en it b reak s o u t, b etrays in h im th e ex isten ce of a fem i­ n in e b ein g . As we know , it is ju s t th e “ h e-m en ” w ho are m ost a t th e m ercy of th e ir fe m in in e feelings. T h is m ig h t e x p la in th e very m u c h g re a te r n u m b e r of suicides a m o n g m en , an d , c o n ­ versely, th e e x tra o rd in a ry s tre n g th a n d toughness o fte n d ev el­ oped by very fe m in in e w om en. I f we carefu lly ex a m in e th e u n c o n tro lle d em o tio n s o f a m a n a n d try to re c o n stru c t th e p ro b ­ ab le p e rso n a lity u n d e rly in g th em , we soon a rriv e a t a fe m in in e figure w hich I call, as I said, th e an im a. O n th e sam e g ro u n d th e an cie n ts co nceived of a fe m in in e soul, a “ psyche” or “a n im a ,” a n d n o t w ith o u t g o o d psychological reasons d id th e ecclesiastics of th e M id d le Ages p ro p o u n d th e q u e stio n , H abet m u lier animam? 80 W ith w o m en th e case is reversed. W h e n th e a n im u s breaks o u t in a w o m an , it is n o t feelings th a t a p p ear, as in a m an , b u t she begins to a rg u e a n d to ra tio n a lize . A n d ju s t as his anim afeelings a re a rb itra ry a n d cap ricio u s, so these fe m in in e a rg u ­ m en ts are illo g ical a n d irra tio n a l. O n e can speak of a n anim usth in k in g th a t is always rig h t a n d m u st have th e last w ord, a n d always e n d u p w ith “ T h a t ’s ju s t th e reaso n !” I f th e a n im a is ir r a ­ tio n al feeling, th e a n im u s is irra tio n a l th in k in g . 81 So far as m y ex p e rie n ce goes, a m a n alw ays u n d e rsta n d s fairly easily w h a t is m e a n t by th e a n im a ; in d eed , as I said, he fre q u e n tly has a q u ite d efin ite p ic tu re of h er, so th a t fro m a v a rie d co lle ctio n of w o m en of all p erio d s he c a n single o u t the one w h o com es closest to th e an im a-type. B u t I have, as a ru le , fo u n d it very difficult to m ake a w o m an u n d e rs ta n d w h at the an im u s is, a n d I have n ev er m e t a n y w om an w ho co u ld tell m e a n y th in g d efin ite a b o u t his p erso n ality . F ro m this I co n c lu d e 8 T w o Essays, pars. 335®. [Cf. also Axon, ch. I l l , esp. pars. *3-33.— E ds.]

th a t th e a n im u s does n o t have a d e fin ite p e rso n a lity a t all; in o th e r w ords, he is n o t so m u c h a u n ity as a p lu ra lity . T h is fact m u st som ehow b e c o n n e c te d w ith th e specific psychology of m e n a n d w om en. O n th e b io lo g ical level a w o m a n ’s c h ie f in ­ terest is to h o ld a m an, w h ile a m a n ’s ch ief in te re st is to c o n q u e r a w om an, a n d because of his n a tu re h e seldom stops a t o n e co n ­ q u est. T h u s o n e m a sc u lin e p e rso n a lity plays a decisive ro le fo r a w o m an , b u t a m a n ’s re la tio n to a w o m an is m u c h less d e fin ite , as he can look o n his w ife as o n e a m o n g m a n y w om en. T h is m akes h im lay stress on th e legal a n d social c h a ra c te r o f m a r­ riage, w hereas a w o m an sees it as a n exclusively p e rso n al re la tio n ­ ship. H en ce, as a ru le , a w o m a n ’s consciousness is re s tric te d to o n e m a n , w hereas a m a n ’s consciousness has a te n d en c y to go b ey o n d th e o n e p erso n al re la tio n s h ip —a te n d en c y th a t is so m e­ tim es o p p o sed to any p e rso n al lim ita tio n s. I n th e u n co n scio u s, th e re fo re , w e m ay e x p e c t a c o m p e n sa tio n b y c o n tra rie s. T h e m a n ’s sh arp ly d efin ed a n im a figure fulfils th is e x p e c ta tio n p e r­ fectly, as also does th e in d e fin ite p o ly m o rp h ism o f th e w o m a n 's an im u s. 8» T h e d e sc rip tio n of a n im a a n d a n im u s th a t I have g iv en h e re is necessarily a b rie f one. B u t I sh o u ld b e c a rry in g b re v ity to o far if I d escrib ed th e a n im a m erely as a p rim o rd ia l im ag e of w o m an co n sistin g of irra tio n a l feelings, a n d th e a n im u s m e re ly as a p rim o rd ia l im age o f m a n co n sistin g of irra tio n a l views. B o th figures p re se n t far-reach in g p ro b le m s, since they are e le m e n ta ry form s of th a t psychic p h e n o m e n o n w h ich fro m p rim itiv e tim es has b e en called th e “ so u l.” T h e y a re also th e cause of th a t d e e p h u m a n n eed to speak of souls o r d aem o n s a t all. 83 N o th in g th a t is a u to n o m o u s in th e psyche is im p e rso n a l o r n e u tra l. Im p e rso n a lity is a categ o ry p e rta in in g to consciousness. A ll a u to n o m o u s psychic factors have th e c h a ra c te r of p e rso n ­ ality, fro m th e “ voices” o f th e in san e to th e co n tro l-sp irits of m e d iu m s a n d th e visions o f th e m ystics. A n im a a n d a n im u s, lik e ­ wise, have a p e rso n ality c h arac te r, a n d th is c a n n o t b e b e tte r ex ­ pressed th a n by th e w o rd “ so u l.” 84 H e re I w o u ld lik e to g u a rd ag ain st a m is u n d e rsta n d in g . T h e c o n c e p t o f “ so u l” w hich I am now u sin g can b e c o m p ared m o re w ith th e p rim itiv e id ea of th e soul, fo r in stan ce th e ha-soul a n d Λα-soul of th e E gyptians, th a n w ith th e C h ris tia n id ea o f it, w h ich is a n a tte m p t to m ak e a p h ilo so p h ic a l c o n stru c t o u t o f a

m etaphysical in d iv id u a l substance. My co n cep tio n of the soul has ab so lu tely n o th in g to do w ith this, since it is p u rely p h e ­ nom enological. I am n o t in d u lg in g in any psychological m ysti­ cism, b u t am sim ply try in g to grasp scientifically the elem en tary psychic p h en o m e n a w hich u n d e rlie the b elief in souls. 85 Since th e co m p lex of facts rep resen ted by a n im a a n d an im u s best corresponds to w h at has been d escribed as soul a t all tim es an d by all peoples, it is h ard ly su rp risin g th at they b rin g an u n ­ com m only m ystical atm o sp h ere alo n g w ith them as soon as one tries to ex am in e th e ir co n ten ts m o re closely. W h en ev er the anim a is pro jected , she im m ed iately su rro u n d s herself w ith a p ecu liar h isto rical feeling w hich G o ethe expressed in th e words: “ In tim es gone by you w ere m y w ife o r sister.” 9 R id e r H aggard an d B en o it h ad to go back to G reece a n d E gypt in o rd er to give expression to this in sisten t historical feeling. 86 C urio u sly en ough, th e an im u s seems to be lacking in this m ystical sense o f history. I w o uld alm ost say th a t he is m ore con­ cern ed w ith th e p resen t a n d the fu tu re . H e has n o m o th etical proclivities, p re fe rrin g to speak grandiosely of things as they sho u ld be, o r to give a n apod ictic ju d g m e n t on the m ost obscure a n d co ntroversial m atters, an d in such positive term s th a t the w om an is reliev ed of all fu rth e r (and possibly all too p ain fu l) reflection. 87 O nce again, I can only ex p lain this difference as a co m p en ­ satio n by contraries. A m an, in his conscious activity, plans ah ead a n d seeks to create th e fu tu re , w hile it is a specifically fem in in e tra it to rack o n e’s b rain s over such questions as w ho was som ebody’s great-great-aunt. B u t it is ju st this fem in in e passion for genealogies th a t comes o u t very clearly in R id e r H aggard, garn ish ed w ith A nglo-Saxon sen tim en t, an d in B enoit the sam e th in g is served u p w ith the spicy a d m ix tu re of a chro n iq u e scandaleuse. In tim a tio n s of re in c a rn a tio n in the form of irra tio n a l feelings h an g very strongly a b o u t a m a n ’s anim a, w hile a w om an w ill som etim es consciously ad m it such feelings if she is n o t too m u ch u n d e r the d o m in a tio n of the m an 's ra ­ tionalism . 88 T h is h isto rical feeling always has the q u a lity of m o m en to u s­ ness a n d fatefulness, a n d th erefo re leads d irectly to the problem s * U n title d p o e m (“W a r u m g a b st d u u n s d ie tie fe n B lic k e ? ”) in W e r k e , II , p . 43.

o f im m o rta lity a n d d iv in ity . E ven th e ra tio n a listic, scep tical B e n o it describ es those w h o have d ie d o f lo v e as b e in g preserved for a ll eter n ity b y a p ecu lia rly effectiv e m e th o d o f m u m m ifica ­ tion , n o t to m e n tio n th e fu ll-b lo w n m ysticism o f R id e r H aggard in A yesh a: T h e R e t u r n of S h e —a lto g eth er a p sy ch o lo g ica l d o c u ­ m e n t o f th e first rank. 89 T h e a n im u s, n o t h a v in g th ese e m o tio n a l q u a lities, seem s to lack en tire ly th e asp ect I have b e e n d escrib in g , y et in h is d eep est essence h e is ju st as h isto rica lly -m in d ed as th e a n im a. U n fo r tu ­ n a tely there are n o g o o d literary ex a m p les o f th e a n im u s. W o m en w riters seem to b e d eficien t in a certa in n a iv e in tr o ­ sp ectio n , or at least th ey p refer to k eep th e resu lts o f th eir in ­ trosp ection in a n o th er co m p a rtm en t, p ossib ly b ecau se n o fe e lin g is c o n n ected w ith it. I k n o w o f o n ly o n e u n p reju d iced d o c u m e n t o f this sort, a n o v e l by M arie H ay, T h e E v i l V in ey a rd . In this very u n p r eten tio u s story th e h isto rica l e le m e n t in th e a n im u s com es o u t in a clev er d isg u ise th at was su rely n o t in te n d e d by th e au th or. 9° T h e an im u s consists o f a p r io r i a ssu m p tio n s based o n u n c o n ­ sid ered ju d gm en ts. T h e e x isten ce o f su ch ju d g m e n ts can o n ly b e in ferred from th e w o m a n ’s co n scio u s a ttitu d e to certa in th in gs. I m u st g iv e y o u an ex a m p le. A w o m a n I k n ew sur­ ro u n d ed h er son w ith th e m o st so le m n caTe a n d le n t h im an im p o rta n ce h e in n o way deserved , w ith th e resu lt that soon after p u b erty h e b eca m e n eu ro tic. T h e reason for h er sen seless a ttitu d e was n o t at first d iscern ib le. C loser in v estig a tio n , h o w ­ ever, revealed th e e x isten ce o f an u n co n scio u s d ogm a th at said: M y son is th e c o m in g M essiah. T h is is a very ord in ary in stan ce o f the w id esp read hero-archetyp e in w o m en , w h ich is p rojected o n th e fath er o r th e h u sb a n d o r th e so n , in th e form o f an o p in io n w h ich th en u n co n scio u sly regu lates th e w o m a n ’s b e ­ h aviou r. A w ell-k n o w n e x a m p le is A n n ie B esant, w h o also d is­ covered a saviour. 9l In M arie H a y ’s n o v e l th e h ero in e d rives h er h u sb a n d in san e b y h er a ttitu d e w h ich is based o n th e u n co n scio u s an d u n sp o k en a ssu m p tio n th at h e is a h o rrib le tyrant w h o h o ld s h er ca p tiv e in m u ch th e sam e w ay as . . . T h e u n c o m p le te d sim ile she le ft to th e in terp reta tio n o f h er h u sb a n d , w h o fin ally d isco v ered the ap p rop riate figure for it in a c in q u e c e n to tyrant w ith w h o m h e id en tified h im self, an d lost h is reason in co n seq u en ce. T h e his-

torical factor, therefore, is by no m eans lacking to the anim us. B ut it expresses itself in a way fu n d am en tally d ifferen t from th a t of the an im a. Sim ilarly, in the religious problem s connected w ith the an im u s the ju d g in g faculties p red o m in a te , ju s t as the feeling faculties do in the case of a m an. 9* Finally, I w ould like to rem ark th a t the an im a a n d an im u s are n o t th e only au to n o m o u s figures o r “souls” in the u n co n ­ scious, th o u g h in practice they are the m ost im m ed iate a n d m ost im p o rtan t. B ut, since I w ould lik e to touch on still a n o th e r as­ pect of the p ro b le m of m in d a n d earth, p erhaps I m ay leave this difficult field of extrem ely su b tle in w ard ex p erience a n d tu rn to th a t o th e r side w here we shall n o longer grope laboriously in the d ark b ack g ro u n d of th e m in d , b u t pass in to the w ide w orld of everyday things. 93 J u s t as, in th e process of ev o lution, the m in d has been m ou ld ed by earth ly conditions, so the same process repeats it­ self u n d e r o u r eyes today. Im ag in e a large section of som e E u ro ­ pean n atio n tra n sp lan ted to a strange soil an d a n o th e r clim ate. W e can confidently expect this h u m a n g ro u p to u n d erg o cer­ tain psychic a n d p erh ap s also physical changes in th e course of a few generations, even w ith o u t th e a d m ix tu re of foreign blood. W e can observe in th e Jew s of th e various E u ro p ean co u n tries m ark ed differences w hich can only be ex p lain ed by the p e c u lia ri­ ties of th e peo p le they live am ongst. I t is n o t difficult to tell a Spanish Jew fro m a N o rth A frican Jew , a G erm an Jew from a R ussian Jew . O n e can even d istin g u ish the various types of R u s­ sian Jew , th e P olish from th e N o rth R ussian a n d Cossack type. In spite of th e sim ilarity of race, th ere are p ro n o u n c e d differ­ ences whose cause is obscure. I t is ex trem ely h a rd to define these differences exactly, th o u g h a stu d e n t of h u m a n n a tu re feels them a t once. 94 T h e g reatest e x p e rim en t in th e tra n sp la n ta tio n of a race in m od ern tim es was th e co lonization of the N o rth A m erican con­ tin e n t by a p re d o m in a n tly G erm an ic p o p u latio n . As the clim atic conditions vary very w idely, we w o u ld expect all sorts of v aria­ tions of th e o rig in al racial type. T h e a d m ix tu re of In d ia n blood is increasingly sm all, so it plays n o role. Boas has show n th a t anatom ical changes begin already in th e second g en eratio n of im m igrants, chiefly in the m easu rem ents of the skull. A t all events th e “Y ankee” type is form ed, a n d this is so sim ilar to the

In d ia n type th a t on m y first visit to th e M iddle W est,10 w hile w atching a stream of w orkers com ing o u t of a factory, I rem arked to m y co m p an io n th a t I sh o u ld never have th o u g h t there was such a hig h percentage of In d ia n blood. H e answ ered, laughing, th at he was w illing to b et th at in all these h u n d red s of m en there w ould n o t be fo u n d a d ro p of In d ia n blood. T h a t was m any years ago w hen I h ad n o n o tio n of the m ysterious Indianization of the A m erican people. I got to know of this mystery only w hen I h ad to tre a t m any A m erican patients analytically. R em ark ab le differences w ere revealed in com parison w ith E u ro ­ peans. 95 A n o th er th in g th a t stru ck m e was the g reat influence of the N egro, a psychological influence n atu rally , n o t d u e to the m ix ­ ing of blood. T h e em otional way an A m erican expresses h im ­ self, especially th e way he laughs, can best be stu d ied in the illu strated supplem ents of th e A m erican papers; the in im itab le T e d d y R oosevelt laugh is fo u n d in its p rim o rd ial form in the A m erican N egro. T h e p ecu liar w alk w ith loose joints, o r the sw inging of th e hips so freq u en tly observed in A m ericans, also comes from the N egro. A m erican m usic draws its m ain in sp ira­ tio n from the N egro, a n d so does th e dance. T h e expression of religious feeling, the revival m eetings, the H oly R ollers an d o th er ab n o rm alities are strongly influenced b y th e N egro, and the fam ous A m erican nai'vet^, in its charm ing as well as its m ore u n p leasan t form , invites com parison w ith the childlikeness of the N egro. T h e vivacity of the average A m erican, w hich shows itself n o t only a t baseball gam es b u t q u ite p articu larly in his ex trao rd in ary love of talk in g —th e ceaseless gabble of A m erican papers is an elo q u en t exam ple of this—is scarcely to be derived from his G erm anic forefathers, b u t is far m ore like the c h a tte r­ ing of a N egro village. T h e alm ost to tal lack of privacy an d the all-devouring mass sociability re m in d one of p rim itiv e life in open huts, w here th ere is com plete id en tity w ith all m em bers of th e tribe. I t seem ed to m e th a t A m erican houses h ad th e ir doors open all the tim e, ju st as th ere are n o hedges ro u n d the gardens in A m erican towns a n d villages. E verything seems to be street. 96 I t is n a tu ra lly very difficult to decide how m uch of all this is d u e to symbiosis w ith th e N egro, a n d how m uch to th e fact 10 [Sic, but Buffalo, New York, is meant, Cf. infra, par. 948.—E d it o h s .]

th at A m erica is still a p io n e e rin g n a tio n o n v irg in soil. B u t taken all in all, th e w ide influence of th e N eg ro o n th e gen eral ch aracter of th e p eo p le is u n m istak ab le. 97 T h is in fe c tio n by th e p rim itiv e can, of course, be o b served ju st as w ell in o th e r co u n trie s, th o u g h n o t to th e sam e deg ree a n d in this form . In A frica, fo r ex am ple, th e w h ite m a n is a d im in ish in g m in o rity a n d m u st th erefo re p ro te c t him self from the N egro by o b serv in g th e m ost rig o rous social form s, o th erw ise he risks “g o in g b lack .” I f h e succum bs to th e p rim itiv e influence h e is lost. B u t in A m erica th e N egro, ju s t because h e is in a m in o rity , is n o t a d eg en erativ e influence, b u t r a th e r o n e w hich, p ecu lia r th o u g h it is, c a n n o t be te rm e d u n fa v o u ra b le —unless one h ap p en s to have a jazz p h o b ia. 98 T h e re m a rk a b le th in g is th a t o n e notices little o r n o th in g of the In d ia n influence. T h e ab o v e-m en tio n ed physiognom ical sim ilarities d o n o t p o in t to A frica b u t are specifically A m erican. Does th e body re a c t to A m erica, a n d th e psyche to A frica? I m u st answ er th is q u e stio n by saying th a t o n ly th e o u tw a rd b e h a v io u r is in flu en ced by th e N egro, b u t w h at goes o n in th e psyche m u st be th e su b jec t o f f u rth e r investigation. 99 I t is n a tu ra l th a t in th e dream s of m y A m erican p a tie n ts the N egro sh o u ld play n o sm all ro le as a n expression of th e in fe rio r side of th e ir p erso n ality . A E u ro p e a n m ig h t sim ilarly d re a m of tram p s o r o th e r rep resen tativ es of th e low er classes. B u t as the g reat m ajo rity of dream s, especially those in th e early stages of analysis, a re superficial, it was only in th e course o f very th o ro u g h a n d d eep analyses th a t I cam e u p o n sym bols re la tin g to the In d ia n . T h e progressive ten d en cy of th e unconscious, as expressed fo r in stan ce in th e hero-m otif, chooses th e In d ia n as its sym bol, ju s t as c e rta in coins of th e U n io n b e a r a n In d ia n head. T h is is a trib u te to th e once-hated In d ia n , b u t it also testi­ fies to th e fact th a t th e A m erican h ero-m otif chooses th e I n d ia n as an ideal figure. I t w o u ld certain ly n ev er o ccu r to any A m er­ ican a d m in istra tio n to place th e h ead of C etew ayo o r any o th e r N egro h e ro o n th e ir coins. M o n arch ies p re fe r th e h ead of the sovereign, d em o cratic states h o n o u r o th e r sym bols of th e ir ideals. I have given a d e ta ile d ex am p le o f a sim ilar A m erican herofantasy in m y book S ym b o ls of T r a n s fo r m a tio n , a n d I co u ld add dozens o f others. 00 T h e h e ro is alw ays th e e m b o d im e n t of m a n ’s h ig h est a n d

101

102

m ost pow erful aspiration, o r of w hat this asp iratio n o u g h t ideally to be an d w hat he w ould m ost gladly realize. I t is therefore of im p o rtan ce w h at k in d of fantasy constitutes the hero-m otif. In the A m erican hero-fantasy th e In d ia n ’s character plays a leading role. T h e A m erican conception of sport goes far beyond the notions of the easy-going E u ro p ean ; only the In d ia n rites of in itia tio n can com pare w ith the ruthlessness an d savagery of a rigorous A m erican train in g . T h e perform ance of A m erican ath letes is th erefo re adm irable. I n everything on w hich the A m erican has really set his h e a rt we catch a glim pse of the In d ia n . H is ex trao rd in ary co n cen tratio n on a p a rtic u la r goal, his tenacity of purpose, his u n flin ch ing en d u ran ce of the g reat­ est hardships—in all this th e legendary virtues of the In d ia n find full expression.11 T h e hero-m otif affects n o t only the general a ttitu d e to life b u t also th e problem s of relig io n . A ny absolutist a ttitu d e is always a religious a ttitu d e , a n d in w hatever respect a m an b e ­ comes absolute, th ere you see his religion. I have fo u n d in my A m erican patien ts th at th e ir hero-figure possesses traits derived from th e relig io n of the In d ian s. T h e m ost im p o rta n t figure in th e ir relig io n is the sham an, th e m edicine-m an or c o n ju re r of spirits. T h e first A m erican discovery in this field—since taken u p in E u ro p e—was spiritualism , a n d the second was C h ristian Sci­ ence an d o th e r forms of m en tal healing. C hristian Science is a n exorcistic ritu a l. T h e dem ons of sickness are denied, suitable incan tatio n s are sung over th e refractory body, a n d C hristianity, the p ro d u c t of a high level of cu ltu re , is used as healing-m agic. T h o u g h the poverty of its sp iritu a l c o n ten t is appalling, C hris­ tian Science is a living force; it possesses a stren g th derived from the soil, a n d can th erefo re w ork those m iracles th a t are sought for in vain in th e official churches. T h e re is n o co u n try on ea rth w here the “pow er-w ord,” the magic form ula, the slogan o r ad vertisem ent is m ore effective th an in A m erica. W e E uropeans laugh a b o u t this, b u t we for­ get th a t faith in th e m agical pow er of the w ord can m ove m ore th a n m ountains. C h rist him self was a w ord, the W ord. W e have becom e estranged from this psychology, b u t in the A m erican it is still alive. I t has yet to be seen w h at A m erica w ill do w ith it. I i See "The Complications o f American Psychology," infra, pp. 502ff.

48

103

T h u s th e A m erican presents a strange p ic tu re : a E u ro p e a n w ith N egro b eh a v io u r an d an In d ia n soul. H e shares th e fate of all u su rp ers of fo reig n soil. C erta in A u stralian p rim itiv es assert th a t one c a n n o t c o n q u e r foreign soil, because in it th e re dw ell strange ancestor-spirits w ho re in c a rn a te them selves in the n ew ­ born . T h e re is a g rea t psychological tru th in this. T h e foreign land assim ilates its co n q u ero r. B u t u n lik e the L a tin co n q u ero rs of C e n tral a n d S outh A m erica, the N o rth A m ericans preserved th e ir E u ro p ea n stan d ard s w ith th e m ost rig id p u rita n ism , th o u g h they co u ld n o t p re v e n t th e souls of th e ir In d ia n foes from becom ­ ing theirs. Everyw here th e v irg in ea rth causes a t least the u n ­ conscious o f the c o n q u e ro r to sink to th e level of its in d ig en o u s in h ab itan ts. T h u s , in the A m erican, th ere is a discrepancy b e ­ tw een conscious a n d unconscious th a t is n o t fo u n d in th e E u ro ­ pean, a ten sio n b etw een a n ex trem ely h ig h conscious level of c u ltu re a n d an unconscious p rim itiv ity . T h is ten sio n form s a psychic p o te n tia l w hich endow s th e A m erican w ith an in d o m i­ table s p irit o f en terp rise a n d an en v iab le en th u siasm w hich we in E u ro p e do n o t know . T h e very fact th a t we still have o u r a n ­ cestral spirits, a n d th a t fo r us ev ery thing is steeped in history, keeps us in co n tact w ith o u r unconscious, b u t we are so cau g h t in this co n tact a n d h e ld so fast in the historical vice th a t the greatest catastrophes a re need ed in o rd e r to w rench us loose a n d to change o u r p o litical b e h av io u r from w hat it was five h u n d re d years ago. O u r co n tact w ith th e unconscious chains us to the earth a n d m akes it h a rd fo r us to m ove, an d this is c e rta in ly n o advantage w hen it com es to progressiveness a n d all th e o th e r d e ­ sirab le m otio n s of the m in d . N evertheless I w o u ld n o t speak ill of o u r re la tio n to good M o th er E arth . P lu r im i p ertr a n s ib u n t— b u t he w ho is ro o te d in the soil endures. A lie n a tio n from the unconscious a n d from its h isto rical co n d itio n s spells rootlessness. T h a t is th e d a n g er th a t lies in w ait for th e c o n q u e ro r of foreign lands, a n d fo r every in d iv id u a l who, th ro u g h one-sided allegi­ ance to an y k in d of -ism, loses touch w ith th e d ark , m atern al, earthy g ro u n d of his being.

A R C H A IC M AN 1 T h e w ord “archaic” m eans p rim al, original. W h ile it is one of the m ost difficult an d thankless of tasks to say an ything of im p o rtan ce a b o u t the civilized m an of today, we are apparently in a m ore favourable position w hen it comes to archaic m an. In the first case, the speaker finds him self caught in the same p re ­ suppositions a n d is b lin d e d by the same prejudices as those w hom he wishes to view from a su p erio r standpoint. In the case of archaic m an, how ever, we are far rem oved from his w orld in tim e, o u r m en tal e q u ip m en t, b ein g m ore differentiated, is su p erio r to his, so th at from this m ore elevated coign of vantage it is possible for us to survey his w orld an d the m eaning it held for him . W ith this sentence I have set lim its to the subject to be covered in my lecture. Unless I restricted myself to the psychic life of archaic m an, I could h ard ly p a in t a sufficiently com pre­ hensive p ictu re of him in so sm all a space. I should like to con­ fine myself to this picture, an d shall say n o th in g a b o u t the find­ ings of anthropology. W h en we speak of m an in general, we do n o t have his anatom y, the shape of his skull, or the colour of his skin in m ind, b u t m ean ra th e r his psychic w orld, his state of consciousness, an d his m ode of life. Since all this belongs to the subject-m atter of psychology, we shall be dealing h ere chiefly w ith the psychology of archaic m an a n d w ith the prim itive m entality. D espite this lim itatio n we shall find we have a ctu ­ ally w idened o u r them e, because it is n o t only prim itive m an I [F irst p u b lis h e d as ''D e r archaische M ensch,” E u ro p a isch e R e v u e (B erlin), V II (1931), 182-203. R evised an d re p u b lish e d in See le n p ro b lem e der G egenw art (Z urich, 1931), p p . 211-47; tran s. by W . S. D ell a n d C ary F. Baynes in M o d e rn M a n in Search o f a So u l (L o n d o n a n d N ew Y ork, 1933), p p . 143-74. T h e la tte r tra n s. has b een c o n s u l t e d . —E d it o r s .]

whose psychology is archaic. It is the psychology also of m odern, civilized m an, and not m erely of individual “ throw-backs” in m odern society. O n the contrary, every civilized hum an being, however high his conscious developm ent, is still an archaic m an a t the deeper levels of his psyche. Ju st as the hum an body con­ nects us w ith the m am m als and displays num erous vestiges of earlier evolutionary stages going back even to the rep tilian age, so the hum an psyche is a product of evolution which, w hen fol­ lowed back to its origins, shows countless archaic traits. 106 W hen we first come into contact w ith prim itive peoples or read ab o u t prim itive psychology in scientific works, we cannot fail to be deeply impressed w ith the strangeness of archaic man. Levy-Bruhl himself, an authority in the field of prim itive psy­ chology, never wearies of em phasizing the striking difference be­ tween the “prelogical" state of m ind and o u r own conscious o u t­ look. It seems to him , as a civilized m an, inexplicable th at the prim itive should disregard the obvious lessons of experience, should flatly deny the most evident causal connections, an d in ­ stead of accounting for things as simply due to chance or on reasonable grounds of causality, should take his “collective rep ­ resentations” as being intrinsically valid. By “collective rep re­ sentations” L£vy-Bruhl means widely cu rren t ideas whose tru th is held to be self-evident from the start, such as the prim itive ideas concerning spirits, witchcraft, the power of m edicines, and so forth. W hile it is perfectly understandable to us th at people die of advanced age or as the result of diseases th at are recog­ nized to be fatal, this is n o t the case w ith prim itive m an. W hen old persons die, he does not believe it to be the result of age. H e argues that there are persons who have lived to be m uch older. Likewise, no one dies as the result of disease, for there have been other people who recovered from the same disease, or never con­ tracted it. T o him , the real explanation is always magic. E ither a spirit has killed the m an, or it was sorcery. Many prim itive tribes recognize death in battle as the only n atu ral death. Still others regard even death in battle as u n n atu ral, holding that the enemy who caused it m ust either have been a sorcerer or have used a charm ed weapon. T h is grotesque idea can on occasion take an even m ore impressive form. For instance, two anklets were found in the stomach of a crocodile shot by a E uropean. T h e natives recognized the anklets as the property of two women

who, some tim e before, had b een d ev o u red by a crocodile. A t once the charge of w itchcraft was raised; for this q u ite n a tu ra l occurrence, w hich w ould never have aroused the suspicions of a E uropean, was given an unexpected in te rp re ta tio n in the lig h t of one of those presuppositions w hich Levy-Bruhl calls “collec­ tive rep resen tatio n s.” T h e natives said th at an unk n o w n sorcerer h ad sum m oned the crocodile, an d had b id d en it catch the two w om en an d b rin g them to him . T h e crocodile had carried o u t this com m and. B ut w hat a b o u t the anklets in the beast’s stom ­ ach? Crocodiles, they explained, never ate people unless bid d en to do so. T h e crocodile had m erely received the anklets from the sorcerer as a rew ard. 107 T h is story is a perfect exam ple of th a t capricious way of ex p lain in g things w hich is characteristic of the “ prelogical” state of m ind. W e call it prelogical, because to us such an ex­ p lan a tio n seems absurdly illogical. B u t it seems so to us only because we start from assum ptions w holly different from those of p rim itiv e m an. If we w ere as convinced as he is of th e exist­ ence of sorcerers a n d o th er m ysterious powers, instead of believ­ ing in so-called n a tu ra l causes, his inferences w ould seem to us perfectly logical. As a m a tte r of fact, p rim itiv e m an is no m ore logical o r illogical th an we are. O nly his presuppositions are different, an d th at is w hat distinguishes him from us. H is th in k ­ ing an d his conduct are based on assum ptions q u ite u n lik e o u r own. T o all th a t is in any way o u t of the o rd in ary a n d th a t th ere­ fore disturbs, frightens o r astonishes him , he ascribes w hat we w ould call a su p ern atu ral origin. For him , of course, these things are n o t su p ern atu ral, b u t belong to his w orld of experience. W e feel we are stating a n a tu ra l sequence of events w hen we say: T h is house was b u rn e d dow n because it was struck by lightning. P rim itiv e m an senses an equally n a tu ra l sequence of events w hen he says: A sorcerer used the lig h tn in g to set fire to this house. T h e re is absolutely n o th in g in the w orld of the p rim itiv e —provided th a t it is a t all u n u su al o r im pressive—th a t will n o t be accounted for on essentially sim ilar grounds. B ut in ex p lain ­ ing things in this way he is a c tin g ^ u st like ourselves: he does n o t exam ine his assum ptions. T o h im it is an u n q u estio n ab le tru th th a t disease an d o th e r ills are caused by spirits o r w itch­ craft, ju st as for us it is a foregone conclusion th a t an illness has a n a tu ra l cause. W e w ould no m ore p u t it dow n to sorcery than

he to n a tu ra l causes. H is m en tal fu n c tio n in g does n o t d iffer in any fu n d am en tal way from ours. I t is, as I have said, his assum p­ tions alone th a t d istin g u ish h im from ourselves. 108 I t is also supposed th a t p rim itiv e m an has o th e r feelings than we, an d a n o th e r k in d of m o ra lity —th a t he has, so to speak, a “p relogical” tem p eram en t. U n d o u b te d ly he has a d ifferen t code of m orals. W h e n asked a b o u t the difference b etw een good a n d evil, a N egro ch ieftain declared: “W h e n I steal m y enem y’s wives, it is good, w hen he steals m ine, it is b a d .” I n m any regions it is a te rrib le in su lt to tread o n a p erso n ’s shadow , a n d in others it is an u n p a rd o n a b le sin to scrape a sealskin w ith an iro n knife instead of a flin t one. B u t le t us be honest. D o we n o t th in k it a sin to eat fish w ith a steel knife, for a m an to keep his h a t on in a room , o r to g reet a lady w ith a cigar in his m outh? W ith us, as w ell as w ith prim itiv es, such th ings have n o th in g to d o w ith ethics. T h e re are good a n d loyal h ead-hunters, a n d th ere are others w ho piously a n d conscientiously p erfo rm cru el rites, o r com m it m u rd e r from sacred conviction. T h e p rim itiv e is no less p ro m p t th a n we are to v alue an eth ical a ttitu d e . H is good is ju st as good as ours, a n d his evil is ju st as b ad as ours. O nly the form s u n d e r w hich they ap p ea r are d ifferent; th e process of ethical ju d g m en t is the same. *°9 I t is likewise th o u g h t th a t p rim itiv e m an has k een er senses th an we, o r th a t they are som ehow different. B u t his highly re ­ fined sense of d ire c tio n o r o f h ea rin g a n d sight is en tire ly a m a tte r of professional d ifferen tiatio n . If he is c o n fro n ted w ith things th a t are o u tsid e his experience, he is am azingly slow a n d clumsy. I once show ed som e n ativ e h u n ters, w ho w ere as keensighted as hawks, m agazine p ictu res in w hich any ch ild of ours w ould in stan tly have recognized h u m a n figures. B u t my h u n t­ ers tu rn e d th e p ictu res ro u n d a n d ro u n d u n til one of them , tracing the o u tlin e w ith his finger, finally exclaim ed: “T h ese are w hite m en !” I t was h ailed by all as a g reat discovery. 1,0 T h e in cred ib ly accu rate sense of d ire ctio n show n by m any prim itives is essentially occupational. It is absolutely necessary th a t they sh o u ld b e a b le to find th e ir way in forests a n d in th e bush. Even th e E u ro p ean , after a sh o rt w hile in A frica, begins to notice things he w ould never have d ream ed of n o ticin g before —a n d from fear of going hopelessly astray in spite of his compass. u* T h e re is n o th in g to show th a t p rim itiv e m an thinks, feels, or

perceives in a way fu n d am en tally d ifferent from ours. I t is rela­ tively u n im p o rta n t th a t he has, o r seems to have, a sm aller area of consciousness th a n we, an d th a t he has little or no ap titu d e fo r con cen trated m ental activity. T h is last, it is true, strikes the E u ro p ean as strange. F or instance, I could never hold a palaver for longer th an two hours, since by th a t tim e the natives declared them selves tired. T h e y said it was too difficult, an d yet I had asked only q u ite sim ple questions in the m ost desultory way. B u t these same people w ere capable of astonishing concentra­ tio n a n d en d u ran ce w hen o u t h u n tin g or o n a journey. My letter-carrier, for instance, could ru n seventy-five m iles a t a stretch. I saw a w om an in h er sixth m o n th of pregnancy, carry­ ing a baby on h e r back an d sm oking a long pipe of tobacco, dance alm ost the whole n ig h t th ro u g h ro u n d a blazing fire w hen th e tem p eratu re was 950, w ith o u t collapsing. It cannot be denied th a t prim itives are q u ite capable of co n cen tratin g on things th a t in terest them . If we have to give o u r a tte n tio n to u n in te r­ esting m atters, we soon notice how feeble o u r powers of concen­ tra tio n are. W e are ju st as d e p en d en t as they are on em otional im pulses. 1‘2 I t is tru e th a t prim itives are sim pler an d m ore childlike than we, in good and evil alike. T h is in itself does n o t im press us as strange. A nd yet, w hen we approach the w orld of archaic m an, we have the feeling of som ething prodigiously strange. Asi far as I have been able to analyse it, this feeling comes pred o m in an tly from the fact th a t the prim ary assum ptions of archaic m an are essentially d ifferent from ours, so th a t he lives in a different world. U n til we com e to know his presuppositions, he is a hard rid d le to read; b u t w hen we know them , all is relatively sim ple. W e m ig h t equally well say th at prim itive m an ceases to be a rid d le for us as soon as we get to know o u r own presuppositions. 11S I t is a ra tio n a l presupposition of ours th a t everything has a n a tu ra l an d perceptible cause. W e are convinced of this rig h t from the start. Causality is one of o u r m ost sacred dogmas. T h e re is n o legitim ate place in o u r w orld for invisible, arb itrary , a n d so-called su p ern atu ral powers—unless, indeed, we descend w ith the m o d ern physicist in to the obscure, m icrocosm ic w orld inside th e atom , w here, it appears, some very curious things happen. B u t th a t lies far from th e b eaten track. W e distinctly resent the idea of invisible an d arb itrary forces, for it is n o t so long ago

th a t we m ad e o u r escape fro m th a t frig h te n in g w o rld o f d ream s a n d su p erstitio n s, a n d co n stru cted fo r ourselves a p ic tu re of th e cosmos w o rth y o f o u r ra tio n a l consciousness—th a t latest a n d greatest ach iev em en t of m an. W e are now s u rro u n d e d by a w o rld th a t is o b e d ie n t to ra tio n a l laws. I t is tru e th a t we d o n o t know the causes o f ev ery th in g , b u t in tim e they w ill b e discovered, a n d these discoveries w ill acco rd w ith o u r reaso n ed ex p ectatio n s. T h e re are, to b e sure, also chance occurrences, b u t they are m erely accid en tal, a n d w e d o n o t d o u b t th a t they have a caus­ ality of th e ir ow n. C h an ce h ap p e n in g s are re p e lle n t to th e m in d th a t loves o rd er. T h e y d istu rb th e reg u la r, p re d ic ta b le course of events in th e m ost a b s u rd a n d irr ita tin g way. W e re se n t them as m u ch as we re se n t inv isib le, a rb itra ry forces, for they re m in d us too m u c h o f S atan ic im ps o r o f th e cap rice o f a d eu s ex m achina. T h e y are th e w orst enem ies of o u r carefu l calcu latio n s a n d a c o n tin u a l th re a t to all o u r u n d e rtak in g s. B ein g a d m itted ly c o n tra ry to reason, they deserve all o u r abuse, a n d y et we sh o u ld n o t fail to give th em th e ir d u e. T h e A ra b shows th em g re a te r resp ect th a n we. H e w rites o n every le tte r In sh a ' allah, “ If G od w ills,” fo r o n ly th e n w ill th e le tte r arriv e. In sp ite of o u r re se n t­ m e n t a n d in sp ite of th e fact th a t events r u n tru e to g en eral laws, it is u n d e n ia b le th a t we a re always a n d everyw here exposed to in calcu lab le accidents. A n d w h a t is m o re in v isib le a n d c a p ri­ cious th a n chance? W h a t is m o re u n a v o id a b le a n d m o re a n n o y ­ ing? If we co n sid e r th e m a tte r, we c o u ld as w ell say th a t th e causal co n n ectio n of events acco rd in g to g en eral laws is a th eo ry w hich is b o rn e o u t a b o u t h alf th e tim e, w h ile for the rest th e d e m o n of chance holds sway. C h an ce events ce rta in ly hav e th e ir n a tu ra l causes, a n d all too o ften we m u st discover to o u r sorrow how com m o n p lace they are. I t is n o t this causality th a t annoys us; th e irrita tin g th in g a b o u t chance events is th a t they have to b efall us h e re a n d n o w in an a p p a re n tly a rb itra ry way. A t least th a t is how it strik es us, a n d even th e m ost o b d u ra te ra tio n a lis t m ay occasionally b e m oved to cu rse th em . H o w ev er we in te rp r e t chance m akes n o d ifference to its pow er. T h e m o re re g u la te d th e co n d itio n s o f life becom e, th e m o re chance is ex clu d ed a n d th e less we n e ed to p ro te c t ourselves ag ain st it. B u t d e sp ite this everyone in p ractice takes p re ca u tio n s ag ain st chance occur-

rences o r hopes for them , even th o u gh th ere is n o th in g ab o u t chance in the official credo. >>5 I t is o u r assum ption, a m o u n tin g to a positive conviction, th a t everything has a “ n a tu ra l” cause w hich, a t least in theory, is perceptible. P rim itiv e m an, on th e o th er hand, assumes th a t everything is b ro u g h t a b o u t by invisible, a rb itra ry pow ers—in o th e r words, th a t everything is chance. O nly he does n o t call it chance, b u t in ten tio n . N a tu ra l causation is to h im a m ere p re ­ tence an d n o t w orthy of m en tio n . If three w om en go to the riv er to draw w ater, and a crocodile seizes the one in th e m iddle and pulls h e r u n d er, o u r view of things leads us to the verdict th a t it was p u re chance th a t th a t p artic u la r w om an was seized. T h e fact th a t th e crocodile seized h er a t all seems to us q u ite n a tu ra l, for these beasts do occasionally eat h u m an beings. "6 F o r p rim itiv e m an such an ex p lan atio n com pletely o b lite r­ ates the facts a n d accounts for no aspect of the w hole exciting story. H e rig h tly finds o u r ex p lan atio n superficial o r even absurd, for according to this view th e accident could ju st as well n o t have happened an d the same ex p lan atio n w ould fit th a t case too—th a t it was “p u re chance” it d id not. T h e p reju d ice of the E u ro p ean does n o t allow him to see how little he is saying w hen he explains things in th a t way. 1J7 P rim itiv e m an expects far m ore of an explanation. W h a t we call p u re chance is for him w ilful in te n tio n . I t was therefore the in te n tio n of the crocodile—as everyone could observe—to seize th e m iddle one of the th re e w om en. If it had n o t had this in te n ­ tio n it w ould have taken one of the others. B ut why d id the crocodile have this in ten tio n ? O rd in arily these creatures do n o t eat h u m an beings. T h a t is q u ite correct—as correct as the state­ m e n t th a t it does n o t o rd in a rily rain in the Sahara. Crocodiles are ra th e r tim id anim als, easily frightened. C onsidering th eir num bers, they kill astonishingly few people, and it is an u n ­ expected an d u n n a tu ra l event w hen they devour a m an. Such an event calls for an explanation. O f his ow n accord the crocodile w ould n o t take a h u m an life. By w hom , then, was he ordered to d o so? 118 I t is on th e facts of the w orld aro u n d h im th a t p rim itiv e m an bases his verdicts. W h en th e un ex p ected occurs he is justifiably astonished an d wishes to know the specific causes. T o this ex te n t he behaves exactly as we do. B u t he goes fu rth e r th an we. H e has

one o r m o re th eo ries a b o u t th e a rb itra ry p o w er of chance. W e say: P u re chance. H e says: C a lc u la tin g in te n tio n . H e lays th e chief stress o n th e c o n fu sin g a n d co nfused breaks in th e c h a in of cau satio n , w h ich we call ch an ce—o n those occu rren ces th a t fail to show th e n e a t causal co n n ectio n s w hich science expects, a n d th a t c o n s titu te th e o th e r h a lf o f h ap p en in g s in g en eral. H e has lo n g ago a d a p te d h im self to n a tu r e in so fa r as it co nform s to gen eral laws; w h a t he fears is u n p re d ic ta b le chance w hose p o w er makes h im see in it a n a rb itra ry a n d in calc u la b le ag en t. H e re again h e is rig h t. I t is q u ite u n d e rsta n d a b le th a t e v ery th in g o u t of th e o rd in a ry s h o u ld frig h te n h im . A n te a te rs are fairly n u m e r ­ ous in th e regio n s so u th of M o u n t E lg o n w h ere I stayed for som e tim e. T h e a n te a te r is a shy, n o c tu rn a l a n im a l th a t is rarely seen. If o n e h ap p e n s to b e seen by day, it is a n e x tra o rd in a ry a n d u n n a tu ra l ev e n t w h ich astonishes th e n atives as m u c h as the discovery of a b ro o k th a t occasionally flows u p h ill w o u ld asto n ish us. If we k new o f a c tu a l cases in w h ich w a te r su d d en ly overcam e the force of gravity, su ch a discovery w o u ld be exceed in g ly d is­ q u ie tin g . W e k n o w th a t tre m e n d o u s masses o f w a te r s u rro u n d us, a n d can easily im ag in e w h a t w o u ld h a p p e n if w a te r n o lo n g er co n fo rm ed to g ra v ita tio n a l law. T h is is th e s itu a tio n in w h ich p rim itiv e m a n finds h im self w ith resp ect to th e h a p p e n in g s in his w orld. H e is th o ro u g h ly fa m ilia r w ith th e h a b its of a n teaters, b u t w h en o n e o f th e m su d d en ly transgresses th e n a tu r a l o rd e r of thin g s it acq u ires fo r h im a n u n k n o w n sp h ere of actio n . P rim i­ tive m an is so stro n g ly im pressed by th in g s as th ey are th a t a transgression of th e laws o f his w o rld exposes h im to in calc u la b le possibilities. I t is a p o rte n t, a n o m en , c o m p arab le to a c o m et o r a n eclipse. Since su ch a n u n n a tu r a l ev en t as th e a p p e a ra n c e of an a n te a te r by day can hav e n o n a tu ra l causes, som e in v isib le pow er m u st b e b e h in d it. A n d th e a la rm in g m a n ife sta tio n of a pow er w h ich can transgress th e n a tu ra l o rd e r obviously calls for e x tra o rd in a ry m easures of p la c a tio n o r defence. T h e n e ig h ­ b o u rin g villages m u st be aroused, a n d th e a n te a te r m u st b e d u g u p w ith th e ir co n certed efforts a n d killed. T h e o ld est m a te rn a l u n cle of th e m a n w ho saw th e a n te a te r m u st th e n sacrifice a b u ll. T h e m an descends in to th e sacrificial p it a n d receives th e first piece of th e a n im a l’s flesh, w h e re u p o n th e u n cle a n d th e o th e r p a rtic ip a n ts in th e cerem o n y also eat. In this way th e d an g ero u s caprice o f n a tu r e is ex p iated .

120

As for us, we sh o u ld certainly be alarm ed if w ater suddenly began to ru n u p h ill for u n k n o w n reasons, b u t are n o t w hen an an tea te r is seen by day, o r an alb in o is b o rn , or an eclipse takes place. W e know the m eaning a n d sphere of action of such h ap ­ penings, w hile p rim itiv e m an does not. O rd in ary events consti­ tu te for him a co h eren t w hole in w hich he an d all o th er crea­ tures are em braced. H e is therefore extrem ely conservative, and does w hat others have always done. If som ething happens, at any p o in t, to break the coherence of this whole, he feels there is a rift in his w ell-ordered w orld. T h e n an ything m ay h ap p en — heaven knows w hat. Al! occurrences th at are in any way strik in g are a t once b ro u g h t in to connection w ith the u n u su al event. F or instance, a m issionary set u p a flagstaff in fro n t of his house so th at he could fly the U n io n Jack on Sundays. B u t this in n o ­ cen t pleasure cost him dear, for w hen shortly after his rev o lu ­ tionary action a devastating storm b roke out, the flagstaff was of course m ade responsible. T h is sufficed to start a general u p risin g against the m issionary. I t is the reg u larity of o rd in a ry occurrences th a t gives p rim i­ tive m an a sense of security in his w orld. Every exception seems to him a th re aten in g act of an a rb itra ry pow er th a t m ust som e­ how be pro p itiated . It is n o t only a m om entary in te rru p tio n of the o rd in ary course of things, b u t a p o rte n t of o th er u ntow ard events. T h is seems ab su rd to us, inasm uch as we forget how o u r g ran d p aren ts a n d great-grandparents still felt a b o u t the w orld. A calf is b o rn w ith two heads an d five legs. In the n ex t village a cock has laid an egg. A n o ld w om an has had a dream , a com et appears in the sky, there is a g reat fire in the nearest town, an d the follow ing year a w ar breaks out. In this way history was always w ritten from rem o te a n tiq u ity dow n to the eig h teen th century. T h is co n catenation of events, so m eaningless to us, is significant an d convincing to p rim itiv e m an. A nd, contrary to all expectation, he is rig h t to find it so. H is powers of observa­ tio n can be trusted. From age-old experience he knows th a t such concatenations actually exist. W h a t seems to us a w holly sense­ less heaping-up of single, haphazard occurrences—because we pay a tte n tio n only to single events an d th eir p artic u la r causes—is for the prim itiv e a com pletely logical sequence of om ens a n d of h ap ­ penings indicated by them . I t is a fatal o u tb re ak of dem onic pow er show ing itself in a thoroughly consistent way.

1*1

T h e c alf w ith tw o h ead s a n d th e w a r a re o n e a n d th e sam e, fo r th e c alf was o n ly a n a n tic ip a tio n o f th e w ar. P rim itiv e m a n finds this c o n n e c tio n so u n q u e s tio n a b le a n d c o n v in c in g b ecau se th e w him s o f c h a n c e seem to h im a fa r m o re im p o r ta n t fa c to r in th e h a p p e n in g s o f th e w o rld th a n re g u la rity a n d c o n fo rm ity to law. T h a n k s to h is close a tte n tio n to th e u n u s u a l, h e d isco v ered lo n g b e fo re us th a t ch an c e events a rra n g e th em selv es in g ro u p s o r series. T h e law of th e d u p lic a tio n o f cases is k n o w n to a ll d o cto rs e n g ag e d in c lin ic a l w ork. A n o ld p ro fesso r o f p sy ch ia try a t W iirz b u rg alw ays u sed to say o f a p a rtic u la rly ra re c lin ic a l case: “ G e n tle m e n , th is case is a b so lu te ly u n iq u e —to m o rro w w e shall have a n o th e r ju s t lik e it.” I m yself o fte n o b se rv e d th e sam e th in g d u r in g m y e ig h t years’ p ra c tic e in a n in sa n e asy lu m . O n o n e occasion a p e rs o n was c o m m itte d fo r a v ery ra re tw ilig h t state o f consciousness—th e first case o f th is k in d I h a d e v e r seen. W ith in tw o days w e h a d a s im ila r case, a n d th a t was th e last. “ D u p lic a tio n o f cases” is a jo k e w ith us in th e clin ics, b u t it was also th e first o b je c t o f p rim itiv e science. A re c e n t in v e stig a to r has v e n tu re d th e s ta te m e n t: “ M agic is th e scien ce o f th e ju n g le .” A strology a n d o th e r m e th o d s o f d iv in a tio n m ay c e rta in ly b e c alled th e science o f a n tiq u ity . *** W h a t h a p p e n s re g u la rly is easily o b se rv e d b ecau se w e a re p re p a re d fo r it. K n o w led g e a n d sk ill a re n e e d e d o n ly in s itu a ­ tio n s w h e re th e c o u rse o f events is in te r r u p te d in a w ay h a rd to fa th o m . G e n e ra lly it is o n e o f th e sh re w d e st a n d w ilie st m e n of th e trib e w ho is e n tru s te d w ith th e o b s e rv a tio n o f m e te o ro ­ logical events. H is k n o w le d g e m u s t suffice to e x p la in a ll u n u s u a l o ccu rren ces, a n d his a r t to c o m b a t th em . H e is th e sch o la r, th e sp ecialist, th e e x p e r t o n chance, a n d a t th e sam e tim e th e k e e p e r of th e arch iv es o f th e tr ib e ’s tra d itio n a l lo re. S u r ro u n d e d by resp ect a n d fear, h e enjoys g re a t a u th o rity , y e t n o t so g re a t b u t th a t his trib e is secretly c o n v in c e d th a t th e n e ig h b o u rin g trib e has a so rc e re r w h o is s tro n g e r th a n th e irs. T h e b e st m e d ic in e is n e v er to be fo u n d close a t h a n d , b u t as fa r aw ay as p o ssib le. I stayed fo r som e tim e w ith a trib e w h o h e ld th e ir o ld m e d ic in e ­ m an in th e g re a te s t aw e. N e v erth ele ss h e was c o n s u lte d o n ly fo r th e m in o r a ilm e n ts o f c a ttle a n d m e n . I n a ll serio u s cases a fo reig n a u th o rity was c alled i n —a M ’ganga w h o was b r o u g h t a t a h ig h fee fro m U g a n d a —ju s t as w ith us. 12S C h an c e ev en ts o c c u r m o st o fte n in la rg e r o r s m a lle r series o r

groups. A n old and w ell-tried rule for foretellin g the w eather is this, that w hen it has rained for several days it w ill also rain tom orrow. A proverb says, “M isfortunes never com e sin g ly .” A nother has it that “It never rains b u t it pours.” T h is proverbial w isdom is prim itive science. T h e com m on people still b elieve it and fear it, bu t the educated man sm iles at it—u n til som ething unusual happens to him . I w ill tell you a disagreeable story. A w om an I know was awakened one m orning by a peculiar tin ­ klin g on her night-table. A fter look in g about her for a w h ile she discovered the cause: the rim of her tum bler had snapped off in a ring abou t a quarter o f an inch w ide. T h is struck her as peculiar, and she rang for another glass. A b o u t five m in utes later she heard the same tin klin g, and again the rim o f the glass had broken off. T h is tim e she was greatly disquieted, and had a third glass brought. W ith in twenty m inutes the rim broke off again w ith the same tin k lin g noise. T h ree such accidents in im m ediate succession were too m uch for her. She gave up her b e lie f in natural causes on the spot and brought out in its place a prim itive “collective representation”—the conviction that an arbitrary power was at work. Som ething o f this sort happens to m any m odern p eop le—provided they are n ot too thick-skulled— w hen they are confronted w ith events w hich natural causation fails to explain. W e naturally prefer to deny such occurrences. T h e y are unpleasant because they disrupt the orderly course of our w orld and make anything seem possible, thus proving that the prim itive m in d in us is n o t yet dead. ,24 P rim itive m an’s b elief in an arbitrary pow er does n o t arise o u t of thin air, as was always supposed, bu t is grounded in ex ­ perience. T h e groupin g o f chance occurrences justifies w hat w e call his superstition, for there is a real measure of probability that unusual events w ill coincide in tim e and place. W e m ust n o t forget that our experience is apt to leave us in the lurch here. O ur observation is inadequate because our p o in t of view leads us to overlook these matters. For instance, it w ould never seri­ ously occur to us to take the follow in g events as a sequence: in the m orning a bird flies in to your room , an hour later you w it­ ness an accident in the street, in the afternoon a relative dies, in the evening the cook drops the soup tureen, and, on com in g hom e at night, you find that you have lost your key. P rim itive m an w ould n ot have overlooked a single item in this chain of 60

events. Every n ew lin k w ould have confirm ed his expectations, a n d he w o u ld be rig h t—m uch m o re nearly rig h t th a n we are w illin g to ad m it. H is an x io u s expectations are fully ju stified a n d serve a pu rp o se. Such a day is ill-om ened, a n d on it n o th in g sho u ld be u n d e rta k e n . In o u r w orld this w ould be re p re h e n sib le su p erstitio n , b u t in th e w o rld of th e p rim itiv e it is highly a p p ro ­ p ria te shrew dness. In th a t w orld m an is far m o re exposed to acci­ dents th a n we are in o u r sh eltered a n d w ell-regulated existence. W h en you are in th e bush you d are n o t take too m any chances. T h e E u ro p e an soon com es to a p p reciate this. 1*5 W h en a P u e b lo In d ia n does n o t feel in the rig h t m ood, he stays away fro m th e m e n ’s council. W h e n a n a n c ie n t R o m an stu m b led o n th e th re sh o ld as he left his house, he gave u p his plans for th e day. T h is seems to us senseless, b u t u n d e r p rim itiv e conditio n s such a n o m en inclines one a t least to be cautious. W h e n I am n o t in fu ll co n tro l of myself, I am h a m p e re d in my m ovem ents, m y a tte n tio n w anders, I get ab sen t-m in d ed . As a resu lt I knock against som ething, stu m ble, d ro p so m eth in g , fo r­ get som ething. U n d e r civilized co n d itio n s all these are m ere trifles, b u t in th e p rim ev al forest they m ean m o rta l d an g er. I m ake a false step o n a slip p ery tre e -tru n k th a t serves as a b rid g e over a riv e r teem in g w ith crocodiles. I lose m y com pass in the high grass. I fo rg et to lo ad m y rifle a n d b lu n d e r in to a rh in o c ­ eros tra il in th e ju n g le. I am p reo ccu p ied w ith m y th o u g h ts a n d step on a puff-adder. A t n ig h tfa ll I fo rget to p u t o n m y m osquitoboots in tim e a n d eleven days la te r I die from an onset of tro p ­ ical m alaria. T o fo rg et to keep o n e's m o u th s h u t w hile b a th in g is en o u g h to b rin g on a fatal attack of dysentery. F or us accidents of this k in d have th e ir recognizable n a tu ra l cause in a som e­ w hat d istracted psychological state, b u t fo r th e p rim itiv e they are objectively c o n d itio n e d om ens, o r sorcery. 126 I t m ay be ra th e r m o re th an a q u e stio n of in a tte n tio n , how ­ ever. In th e K itoshi reg io n so u th of M o u n t Elgon, in East A frica, I w ent on a n ex p ed itio n in to the K abras forest. T h e re , in the thick grass, I nearly step p e d o n a puff-adder, a n d only m anaged to ju m p away ju s t in tim e. T h a t a fte rn o o n m y c o m p an io n re ­ tu rn e d from a h u n t, d eath ly pale a n d tre m b lin g in every lim b. H e h ad n arro w ly escaped b ein g b itte n by a seven-foot m am b a w hich d a rte d a t h im fro m b e h in d a te rm ite h ill. H e w ould u n ­ d o u b ted ly have b een k illed h ad he n o t been ab le to w o u n d th e 61

b ru te w ith a shot a t th e last m om ent. A t n in e o ’clock th a t n ig h t o u r cam p was attacked by a pack of ravenous hyenas w hich had surprised a m an in his sleep the day before a n d to rn h im to pieces. In spite of th e fire they sw arm ed in to the h u t o f o u r cook, who fled scream ing over the stockade. T h e n c e fo rth there were no accidents th ro u g h o u t the w hole of o u r jo urney. Such a day gave o u r N egroes food for thought. F or us it was a sim ple m u ltip licatio n of chance events, b u t for them the in ev itab le fulfilm ent of an om en th a t had occurred o n th e first day of o u r jo u rn e y in to the wilds. It so h ap p en ed th at we had fallen, Ford car, bridge, and all, in to a stream we were trying to cross. O u r boys h ad exchanged glances as if to say: “W ell, th a t’s a fine sta rt.” T o cap this calam ity, a tropical th u n d ersto rm blew u p an d soaked us so thoroughly th a t I was p ro strated w ith fever for several days. O n th e evening of th e day w hen my frien d h ad had such a narrow escape o u t h u n tin g , I could n o t h elp saying to him as we w hite m en sat looking at one an o th er: “You know , it seems to m e as if th e tro u b le had b e g u n still fu rth e r back. D o you rem em b er the dream you told m e in Z urich ju st before we left?” A t th a t tim e he had had a very im pressive nightm are. H e dream ed he was h u n tin g in Africa, a n d was suddenly attacked by a huge m am ba, so th a t he woke u p w ith a cry of terro r. T h e dream had d istu rb ed him greatly, and he now confessed to m e th a t he had th o u g h t it p o rte n d e d the death of one of us. H e had of course assum ed th a t it was my death, because we always hope it is the o th er fellow. B ut it was he w ho later fell ill of a severe m alarial fever th a t b ro u g h t him to the b rin k of the grave. ,27 T o read of such a conversation in a co rn er of the w orld w here there are no m am bas an d no anopheles m osquitoes m eans very little. O ne m ust im agine the velvety b lu e of a tropical night, the overhanging black masses of gigantic trees stan d in g in the prim eval forest, the m ysterious voices of the n o ctu rn al spaces, a lonely fire w ith loaded rifles stacked beside it, m osquitonets, boiled swam p-water to d rin k , an d above all the conviction expressed by an old A frik an d er w ho knew w hat he was talking ab o u t: “T h is isn’t m an ’s co u n try —it’s G od's cou n try .” T h e re m an is n o t king; it is ra th e r n a tu re , the anim als, plants, a n d the m icrobes. G iven the m ood th a t goes w ith the place, one u n d e r­ stands how it is th at we fo u n d a daw ning significance in things th a t anyw here else w ould provoke a smile. T h a t is the w o rld of 62

u n re stra in e d cap ricio u s pow ers w h ich p rim itiv e m an has to deal w ith every day. T h e u n u su a l ev en t is n o jo k e to him . H e draw s his ow n conclusions. “T h is is n o t a good place,” “T h e day is u n fa v o u ra b le ”—a n d w ho know s w h at d angers he avoids by fol­ low ing such w arnings? »s8 “ M agic is th e science of th e ju n g le .” T h e p o rte n t brings a b o u t an im m ed iate a lte ra tio n of a course of action, th e a b a n d o n ­ m e n t of a p la n n e d u n d ertak in g , a change of psychic a ttitu d e . T h e se are all h ig h ly e x p e d ie n t reactions in view of the fact th a t chance occurrences ten d to fall in to sequences a n d th a t p rim itiv e m an is w holly unconscious of psychic causality. T h a n k s to o u r one-sided em phasis o n so-called n a tu ra l causes, we have learn ed to d iffere n tiate w h at is su bjective a n d psychic from w h at is objective a n d “ n a tu ra l.” F o r p rim itiv e m an, on th e co n trary , th e psychic a n d th e objectiv e coalesce in th e e x te rn a l w orld. In th e face of so m eth in g e x tra o rd in a ry it is n o t he w ho is asto n ­ ished, b u t ra th e r th e th in g w hich is astonishing. It is m ana— endow ed w ith m agic pow er. W h a t we w o u ld call th e pow ers of im ag in atio n a n d suggestion seem to h im in v isib le forces w hich act o n h im from w ith o u t. H is c o u n try is n e ith e r a g eographical n o r a p o litical en tity . I t is th a t te rrito ry w hich co n tain s his m ythology, his relig io n , all his th in k in g a n d feelin g in so far as he is unconscious of these functions. H is fear is localized in cer­ ta in places th a t are “ n o t good.” T h e spirits of th e d e p a rte d in ­ h a b it such a n d such a w ood. T h a t cave h a rb o u rs devils w ho strangle any m an w ho enters. In y o n d er m o u n ta in lives the g reat serp en t; th a t h ill is th e grave of th e leg en d ary k in g ; n ear this sp rin g o r rock o r tree every w om an becom es p re g n a n t; th a t ford is g u ard e d by snake-dem ons; this to w erin g tree has a voice th a t can call c e rta in people. P rim itiv e m an is unpsychological. Psychic h ap p en in g s take place o u tsid e h im in an objec­ tive way. E ven th e th in g s he d ream s a b o u t are re a l to h im ; th a t is his only reason fo r p ay in g a tte n tio n to dream s. O u r E lgonyi p o rte rs m a in ta in e d in all seriousness th a t they n ev er had dream s —only th e m ed icin e-m an h a d th em . W h e n I q u e stio n e d the m edicine-m an, he d eclared th a t he h ad sto p p ed h av in g dream s w hen th e B ritish e n te re d th e land. H is fa th e r h ad still had “ b ig ” dream s, he to ld m e, a n d h a d k n o w n w h ere th e herds strayed, w here th e cows took th e ir calves, a n d w h en th ere was going to be a w ar o r a pestilence. I t was now th e D istric t Com-

m issioner w ho knew everything, an d they knew noth in g . H e was as resigned as certain P apuans w ho believe th a t the croco­ diles have for the m ost p art gone over to the B ritish G overn­ m ent. It h ap pen ed th a t a native convict who had escaped from the au th o rities had been badly m angled by a crocodile w hile trying to cross a river. T h ey therefore concluded th a t it m ust have been a police crocodile. G od now speaks in dream s to the B rit­ ish, a n d n o t to th e m edicine-m an of the Elgonyi, he to ld me, because it is the B ritish w ho have the power. D ream activity has em igrated. Occasionally the souls of the natives w ander off too, and th e m edicine-m an catches them in cages as if they were birds, o r strange souls come in as im m igrants a n d cause peculiar diseases. I29 T h is projection of psychic happenings n atu rally gives rise to relations betw een m en an d m en, o r betw een m en an d an i­ mals o r things, th a t to us are inconceivable. A w hite m an shoots a crocodile. A t once a crow d of people come ru n n in g from the nearest village and excitedly dem and com pensation. T h e y ex­ plain th at the crocodile was a certain old w om an in th e ir village w ho had died at the m om ent w hen the shot was fired. T h e crocodile was obviously h er bush-soul. A n o th er m an shot a leopard th at was lying in w ait for his cattle. Ju st then a w om an died in a n eig h b o u rin g village. She and the leopard were identical. 1S0 L ivy-B ruhl has coined th e expression participation mys­ tiq u e for these rem ark ab le relationships. I t seems to m e th a t the w ord “m ystical” is n o t happily chosen. P rim itive m an does n o t see anything m ystical in these m atters, b u t considers them p er­ fectly n atu ral. It is only we w ho find them so strange, because we ap p ear to know n o th in g a b o u t the phenom ena of psychic dissociation. In reality, however, they occur in us too, n o t in this naive b u t in a ra th e r m ore civilized form . In daily life it happens all the tim e th a t we presum e th at the psychology of o th er people is th e same as ours. W e suppose th at w hat is pleas­ ing o r desirable to us is the same to others, an d th a t w hat seems bad to us m ust also seem bad to them . I t is only recently th a t o u r courts of law have nerved themselves to ad m it the psycho­ logical relativity of g u ilt in p ro n o u n cin g sentence. T h e ten et q u o d licet Jo vi no n licet bovi still rankles in the m inds of all unsophisticated people; eq u ality before the law is still a precious

achievem ent. A n d we still a ttrib u te to th e o th e r fellow all th e evil an d in fe rio r q u alities th a t we do n o t like to recognize in ourselves, an d th erefo re have to criticize a n d attack him , w hen all th a t has h ap p en ed is th a t an in fe rio r "so u l” has em ig rated from one person to an o th er. T h e w orld is still fu ll of betes noires an d scapegoats, ju st as it form erly teem ed w ith w itches an d werewolves. 13» P ro jectio n is o n e of the com m onest psychic p h en o m en a. I t is th e same as particip a tio n m ystiq u e, w hich Levy-B ruhl, to his great cred it, em phasized as b ein g an especially characteristic feature of p rim itiv e m an. W e m erely give it a n o th e r nam e, and as a ru le deny th a t we are guilty of it. E v erything th a t is u n c o n ­ scious in ourselves we discover in o u r n eig h b o u r, a n d we tre a t him accordingly. W e no longer su b ject h im to th e test of d rin k ­ ing poison; we do n o t b u rn h im o r p u t the screws on h im ; b u t we in ju re h im by m eans of m o ral verdicts p ro n o u n ced w ith the deepest conviction. W h a t we co m b at in h im is usually o u r own in fe rio r side. *3* T h e sim ple tru th is th a t p rim itiv e m an is som ew hat m ore given to p ro je ctio n th a n we because of the u n d iffe re n tia te d state of his m in d a n d his co n seq u en t in ab ility to criticize h im ­ self. E verything to h im is absolutely objective, a n d his speech reflects this in a d rastic way. W ith a touch of h u m o u r we can pictu re to ourselves w hat a leopard-w om an is like, ju st as we d o w hen we call a person a goose, a cow, a hen, a snake, a n ox, or a n ass. T h ese u n co m p lim en tary ep ithets are fam iliar to us all. B ut w hen p rim itiv e m an a ttrib u te s a bush-soul to a person, th e poison o f m oral ju d g m e n t is absent. H e is too n a tu ra listic for that; he is too m uch im pressed by things as they are and m uch less p ro n e to pass ju d g m e n t th a n we. T h e P u eb lo In d ian s d e­ clared in a m atter-of-fact way th a t I belonged to th e B ear T o te m —in o th e r words, th a t I was a b ear—because I d id n o t com e dow n a lad d er stan d in g u p like a m an, b u t b u n ch ed u p on all fours like a bear. If anyone in E u ro p e said I h ad a bearish n atu re this w ould a m o u n t to the same thing, b u t w ith a ra th e r different shade o f m ean in g . T h e th em e of the bush-soul, w hich seems so strange to us w hen we m eet w ith it am ong prim itives, has becom e w ith us a m ere figure of speech, like so m uch else. If we take o u r m etap h o rs concretely we r e tu rn to the p rim itiv e p o in t of view. F o r instance, we have th e expression “ to h an d le

a patient.” In concrete terms this means “to lay hands on” a per­ son, “to work at with the hands,” “to m anipulate.” And this is precisely what the m edicine man does with his patients. >33 We find the bush-soul hard to understand because we are baffled by such a concrete way of looking at things. W e cannot conceive of a "soul” that splits off completely and takes up its abode in a wild animal. W hen we describe someone as an ass, we do not mean that he is in every aspect the quadruped called an ass. W e mean that he resembles an ass in some particular respect. W e split off a b it of his personality or psyche and per­ sonify it as an ass. So, too, for prim itive m an the leopard-woman is a hum an being, only her bush-soul is a leopard. Since all u n ­ conscious psychic life is concrete and objective for him, he sup­ poses that a person describable as a leopard has the soul of a leopard. If the splitting and concretizing go still further, he assumes that the leopard-soul lives in the bush in the form of a real leopard. ‘34 These identifications, brought about by projection, create a world in which m an is completely contained psychically as well as physically. T o a certain extent he coalesces with it. In no way is he master of this world, b u t only a fragm ent of it. Prim itive m an is still far from the glorification of hum an powers. H e does not dream of regarding himself as the lord of creation. In Africa, for instance, his zoological classification does not culm inate in H om o Sapiensj b u t in the elephant. N ext comes the lion, then the python or the crocodile, then m an and the lesser creatures. Man is still dovetailed into nature. It never occurs to him that he m ight be able to rule her; all his efforts are devoted to protecting himself against her dangerous ca­ prices. It is civilized m an who strives to dom inate nature and therefore devotes his greatest energies to the discovery of n at­ ural causes which will give him the key to her secret laboratory. T h a t is why he strongly resents the idea of arbitrary powers and denies them. T h e ir existence would am ount to proof that his attem pt to dom inate nature is futile after all. »35 Summing up, we may say that the outstanding trait of archaic m an is his attitude towards the arbitrary power of chance, which he considers a far more im portant factor in the worldprocess than natural causes. It consists on the one hand in the observed tendency of chance occurrences to take place in a 66

series, an d o n th e o th e r in th e p r o je c tio n o f u n c o n sc io u s p sy ch ic co n ten ts th ro u g h p a r t i c i p a t i o n m y s t i q u e . F or arch aic m a n th is d is tin c tio n d oes n o t ex ist, b ecau se p sych ic h a p p e n in g s are p ro ­ jected so c o m p le te ly th at th ey c a n n o t b e d is tin g u is h e d from o b jectiv e , p h ysica l ev en ts. For h im th e vagaries o f ch a n ce are arbitrary a n d in te n tio n a l acts, in te r v e n tio n s by a n im a te b ein g s. H e d oes n o t rea lize th at u n u su a l ev en ts stir h im so d e e p ly o n ly b ecau se h e in v ests th em w ith th e p o w er o f h is o w n a sto n ish ­ m e n t or fear. H e r e , it is tru e, w e m o v e o n trea ch ero u s g ro u n d . Is a th in g b e a u tifu l b eca u se I a ttr ib u te b ea u ty to it? O r is it th e o b jectiv e b eau ty o f th e th in g th at co m p els m e to a ck n o w led g e it? A s w e k n o w , grea t m in d s h ave w restled w ith th e p ro b lem w h e th e r it is th e g lo r io u s su n th a t illu m in a te s th e w o rld , or th e s u n lik e h u m a n eye. A rch a ic m a n b e lie v e s it to b e th e su n , a n d civ iliz e d m a n b e lie v e s it to b e th e ey e—so far, at any rate, as h e reflects at a ll a n d d o es n o t suffer from th e d isea se o f th e p oets. H e m u st d e-p sychize n a tu re in o rd er to d o m in a te her; a n d in order to see h is w o r ld o b je c tiv e ly h e m u st tak e back a ll his archaic p ro jectio n s. 1S6 In th e arch aic w o rld e v e r y th in g has s o u l—th e s o u l o f m an , or le t us say o f m a n k in d , th e c o lle c tiv e u n co n sc io u s, for th e in d iv id u a l has as yet n o so u l o f h is o w n . W e m u st n o t fo rg et th at w h a t th e C h ristia n sacram en t o f b a p tism p u rp o rts to d o is a lan d m ark o f th e u tm o st sig n ifica n ce in th e p sy ch ic d e v e lo p ­ m e n t o f m a n k in d . B a p tism en d o w s th e in d iv id u a l w ith a liv in g sou l. I d o n o t m ea n th at th e b a p tism a l r ite in its e lf d o es th is, by a u n iq u e an d m a g ica l act. I m ea n th at th e id ea o f b a p tism lifts m an o u t o f h is arch aic id e n tific a tio n w ith th e w o rld and transform s h im in to a b e in g w h o stand s a b o v e it. T h e fact th at m a n k in d has risen to th e le v e l o f th is id ea is b a p tism in th e d eep est sen se, for it m ean s th e b irth o f th e sp ir itu a l m a n w h o transcends n a tu re. *37 In th e p sy ch o lo g y o f th e u n c o n sc io u s it is an a x io m th at every r e la tiv ely in d e p e n d e n t p o r tio n o f th e psych e has th e ch aracter o f p erson ality, th a t it is p erso n ified as so o n as it is g iv e n an o p p o r tu n ity fo r in d e p e n d e n t ex p ressio n . W e fin d th e clearest in stan ces o f th is in th e h a llu c in a tio n s o f th e in sa n e a n d in m e d iu m istic co m m u n ic a tio n s. W h e n e v e r an a u to n o m o u s c o m ­ p o n e n t o f th e p sych e is p ro jected , an in v is ib le p erso n co m es in to b ein g . I n th is w ay th e sp irits arise a t a n o rd in a ry sp iritu a l-

67

»38

»39

istic s£ance. So too am ong prim itives. If an im p o rtan t psychic com ponent is projected on a h u m an being, he becomes mana, extrao rd in arily effective—a sorcerer, witch, werewolf, or the like. T h e prim itiv e idea th a t the m edicine-m an catches the souls th at have w andered away by n ig h t and puts them in cages like birds is a striking illu stratio n of this. T hese projections give the m edicine-m an his m ana, they cause anim als, trees, and stones to speak, an d because they are his own psychic com ­ ponents they com pel the pro jicien t to obey them absolutely. For this reason an insane person is helplessly at the m ercy of his voices; they are projections of his ow n psychic activity whose unconscious subject he is. H e is the one w ho speaks th ro u g h his voices, ju st as he is th e one w ho hears, sees, a n d obeys. F rom a psychological p o in t of view, therefore, the p rim itiv e theory th at the arb itrary pow er of chance is th e outcom e of the inten tio n s of spirits a n d sorcerers is perfectly n atu ral, because it is an unavoidable inference from the facts as p rim itiv e m an sees them . L et us n o t delude ourselves in this connection. If we explain o u r scientific views to an in tellig en t native he will accuse us of ludicrous superstitiousness and a disgraceful w ant of logic, for he believes th a t the w orld is lighted by the sun and n o t by the h u m an eye. My frien d M ountain Lake, a P ueblo chief, once called m e sharply to account because I had m ade in sin u atin g use of the A ugu stin ian argum ent: “N ot this sun is o u r Lord, b u t he w ho m ade this su n .” P o in tin g to the sun he cried indignantly: “H e w ho goes th ere is o u r father. You can see him . From him comes all light, all life—there is n o th in g th at he has n o t m ade.” H e becam e greatly excited, struggled for words, and finally cried out: “Even a m an in the m ountains, who goes alone, cannot m ake his fire w ith o u t him .” T h e archaic stan d p o in t could hardly be m ore b eautifully expressed th a n by these words. T h e pow er th a t rules us is outside, in the external w orld, an d thro u g h it alone are we p erm itted to live. R eligious th o u g h t keeps alive th e archaic state of m in d even today, in a tim e b ereft of gods. U n to ld m illions of people still th in k like this. Speaking earlier of p rim itiv e m an ’s a ttitu d e to the arb itrary pow er of chance, I expressed th e view th at this a ttitu d e serves a purpose an d therefore has a m eaning. Shall we, for the m o­ m en t a t least, v en tu re th e hypothesis th a t the prim itive belief 68

in a rb itra ry pow ers is justified by th e facts a n d n o t m erely from a psychological p o in t of view? T h is sounds alarm in g , b u t I have no in te n tio n o f ju m p in g from th e frying-pan in to th e fire a n d trying to prove th a t w itch craft actually works. I m erely w ish to consider th e conclusions to w hich we shall be led if we follow p rim itiv e m an in assum ing th a t all lig h t comes from the sun, th at things are b ea u tifu l in them selves, a n d th a t a b it of th e h u m an soul is a leo p ard —in o th e r words, th a t the m an a theory is correct. A ccording to this theory, beauty moves us, it is n o t we w ho create beauty. A certain person is a devil, we have n o t projected o u r ow n evil o n h im an d in this way m ade a devil o u t of him . T h e re are p eo p le—m ana p ersonalities—w ho a re im p res­ sive in th e ir ow n rig h t a n d in no way thanks to o u r im ag in a­ tion. T h e m an a theory m ain tain s th a t th ere is so m eth in g like a widely d istrib u te d pow er in th e e x tern al w orld th a t produces all those ex trao rd in ary effects. E very thing th a t exists acts, o th e r­ wise it w ould n o t be. I t can be only by v irtu e of its in h e re n t energy. Being is a field of force. T h e p rim itiv e idea of m ana, as you can see, has in it th e begin n in g s of a cru d e th eo ry of energy. »4 So far we can easily follow this p rim itiv e idea. T h e difficulty arises w hen we try to carry its im plications fu rth e r, fo r they r e ­ verse th e process of psychic p ro je ctio n of w hich I have spoken. I t is th en n o t m y im ag in atio n o r my awe th a t m akes th e m edicine-m an a sorcerer; on th e co n trary, h e is a so rcerer a n d projects his m agical powers on me. Spirits are n o t h a llu c in a ­ tions of m y m in d , b u t ap p ea r to m e of th e ir ow n v o litio n . A lth o u g h such statem ents are logical derivatives of th e m an a idea, we h esitate to accept th em a n d begin to look a ro u n d for a com fortable theory of psychic p ro jectio n . T h e q u e stio n is n o th ­ in g less th a n this: Does th e psychic in gen eral—the soul o r sp irit or th e unconscious—o rig in a te in us, o r is th e psyche, in th e early stages of conscious evolu tio n , actually outside us in th e form of arb itrary pow ers w ith in te n tio n s of th e ir ow n, a n d does it gradually take its place w ith in us in th e course of psychic developm ent? W ere th e split-off “souls”—o r dissociated psychic contents, as we w ould call th e m —ever parts of th e psyches of individuals, o r w ere they from th e b eg in n in g psychic en tities existing in them selves according to th e p rim itiv e view as ghosts, ancestral spirits, a n d th e like? W ere they only by degrees em ­ bod ied in m an in th e course of d ev elo pm ent, so th a t they gradu-

ally co n stitu ted in h im th a t w orld w hich we now call the psyche? *4« T h is whole idea strikes us as dangerously paradoxical, b u t, at bottom , it is n o t altogether inconceivable. N o t only the re li­ gious in stru cto r b u t th e ed u cato r as well assumes th a t it is pos­ sible to im p lan t som ething psychic in m an th at was n o t there before. T h e pow er of suggestion an d influence is a fact; indeed, the m odern behaviourists have extravagant expectations in this respect. T h e idea of a com plex b u ild in g -u p of the psyche is expressed on a prim itiv e level in a variety of forms, for instance in the w idespread b elief in possession, the in carn atio n of an ­ cestral spirits, the im m ig ratio n of souls, a n d so forth. W hen som eone sneezes, we still say: “G od bless you,” by w hich is m ean t: “ I hope your new soul w ill do you no h arm .” W h en in the course of o u r ow n developm ent we feel ourselves achieving a unified personality o u t of a m u ltitu d e of contradictory ten d ­ encies, we experience som ething like a com plex growing-to­ geth er of the psyche. Since the h u m an body is b u ilt u p by heredity o u t of a m u ltitu d e of M endelian units, it does n o t seem altogether o u t of the q u estion th a t the h u m an psyche is sim ilarly p u t together. >4* T h e m aterialistic views of o u r day have one tendency w hich they share w ith archaic th o u g h t: b o th lead to the conclusion th a t the in d iv id u al is a m ere resu ltan t. In the first case he is the resu lta n t of n atu ra l causes, a n d in the second of chance occur­ rences. A ccording to b o th accounts, h u m an ind iv id u ality is n o th in g in its ow n rig h t, b u t ra th e r the accidental product of forces con tain ed in th e objective environm ent. T h is is th o r­ oughly consistent w ith the archaic view of the w orld, in w hich the o rdinary in d iv id u al is never im p o rtan t, b u t always in te r­ changeable w ith any o th er an d easily dispensable. By th e ro u n d ­ ab o u t way of strict causalism, m o d ern m aterialism has re tu rn e d to th e stan d p o in t of archaic m an. B ut the m aterialist is m ore radical, because he is m ore systematic. A rchaic m an has the ad­ vantage of b eing inconsistent: he m akes an exception of the m ana personality. In th e course of history these m ana personal­ ities w ere exalted to th e position of divine figures; they becam e heroes an d kings w ho shared the im m ortality of the gods by eating the food of eternal youth. T h is idea of the im m ortality of th e in d iv id u al an d of his im perishable w orth can be found 70

on the earliest archaic levels, first o f all in the b e lie f in spirits, and then in m yths o f the age w hen death had n o t yet gained entry into the w orld through hum an carelessness or folly. HS P rim itive m an is n ot aware of this contradiction in his view s. My E lgonyi porters assured m e that they had no idea w hat w ould happen to them after death. A ccordin g to th em a m an is sim ply dead, he does not breathe any m ore, and the corpse is carried into the bush where the hyenas eat it. T h a t is w hat they think by day, b u t th e n igh t teem s w ith spirits of the dead w ho bring diseases to cattle and m en, w h o attack and strangle the nocturnal traveller and in d u lge in other form s o f vio len ce. T h e prim itive m in d is fu ll of such contradictions. T h e y cou ld worry a E uropean o u t o f his skin, and it w o u ld never occur to him that som ethin g q u ite sim ilar is to be fo u n d in our civilized midst. W e have universities w here the very th o u g h t o f d iv in e intervention is considered beneath dispute, b u t w here th eology is a part o f the curriculum . A research w orker in natural science who thinks it p ositively obscene to attrib ute the sm allest varia­ tion o f an anim al species to an act o f d iv in e arbitrariness may have in another com partm ent of his m in d a fu ll-b lo w n C hris­ tian faith w hich he likes to parade on Sundays. W h y sh o u ld we excite ourselves ab ou t p rim itive inconsistency? *44 It is im possible to derive any p h ilosop h ical system from the fundam ental thoughts o f prim itive m an. T h e y p rovid e o n ly antinom ies, b u t it is just these that are the in ex h a u stib le source of all spiritual problem s in all tim es and in all civilization s. W e may ask w hether the “collective representations'* o f archaic m an are really profound, or d o they on ly seem so? I can n ot answ er this m ost difficult o f questions, bu t I w ou ld like, in con clu sion , to tell you of an observation I m ade am on g the m o u n ta in tribe of the Elgonyi. I searched and in q u ired far and w ide for traces of religious ideas and cerem onies, and for w eeks on end I dis­ covered n oth in g. T h e natives let m e see everyth ing and w ere w illin g to give m e any inform ation. I co u ld talk w ith them w ith ou t the hindrance o f a native interpreter, for m any o f the old m en spoke Sw ahili. A t first they w ere rather reserved, but once the ice was broken I had the frien d liest recep tion . T h e y knew n o th in g o f religious custom s. B ut I d id not give up, and finally, at the end o f on e of many fruitless palavers, an o ld m an suddenly exclaim ed: “In the m ornin g, w hen the sun com es up,

we go o u t of the huts, spit in o u r hands, an d hold them u p to the su n .” I got them to perform the cerem ony for m e and describe it exactly. T h ey hold th eir hands before th eir faces and spit o r blow in to them vigorously. T h e n they tu rn th eir hands ro u n d and hold the palm s towards the sun. I asked them the m eaning of w hat they d id —why they blew or spat in th eir hands. My question was futile. “T h a t is how it has always been d o n e,” they said. It was im possible to get an explanation, and it becam e clear to m e th at they knew only w hat they d id and no t why they did it. T h ey see no m eaning in th eir action. T h ey greet the new m oon w ith the same gesture. »45 Now let us suppose th at I am a total stranger in Zurich and have come to this city to explore the customs of the place. First I settle dow n on the outskirts near some su b u rb an homes, and come into neighbourly contact w ith th e ir owners. I then say to Messrs. M uller and Meyer: “ Please tell m e som ething about your religious custom s.” Both gentlem en are taken aback. T h ey never go to church, know n o th in g about it, an d em phatically deny th at they practise any such customs. It is spring, and Easter is approaching. O ne m o rn in g I surprise M r. M uller at a curious occupation. H e is busily ru n n in g about the garden, hid in g coloured eggs and setting up peculiar ra b b it idols. I have caught him in flagrante. “W hy did you conceal this highly interesting cerem ony from me?” I ask him . “W hat cerem ony?” he retorts. “T h is is nothing. Everybody does it at E astertim e.” “B u t w hat is the m eaning of these idols and eggs, an d why do you hide them ?" M r. M uller is stunned. H e does not know , any m ore than he knows the m eaning of the Christm as-tree. A nd yet he does these things, ju st like a prim itive. D id the distant an ­ cestors of the Elgonyi know any b e tte r w hat they were doing? I t is highly im probable. Archaic m an everywhere does w hat he does, and only civilized m an knows w hat he does. *46 W h at is the m eaning of the Elgonyi cerem ony ju st cited? Clearly it is an offering to the sun, which for these natives is m u n g u —th a t is, mana, o r divine—only at the m om ent of rising. If they have spittle on th e ir hands, this is the substance which, according to prim itive belief, contains the personal mana, the life-force, the power to heal and to m ake magic. If they breathe in to th eir hands, breath is w ind and spirit—it is roho, in A rabic ru ck, in H ebrew ruach, a n d in G reek pneum a. T h e action 72

m eans: I offer m y liv in g soul to G od. I t is a w ordless, a c te d p ray er, w h ich c o u ld e q u a lly w ell be sp o k en : " L o rd , in to th y h ands I c o m m e n d m y s p irit.” »47 Does this m erely h a p p e n so, o r was th is th o u g h t b ro o d e d a n d w illed even b e fo re m a n existed? I m u st leave th is q u e s tio n u n an sw ered .

T H E S P IR IT U A L PR O B LE M OF M O D E R N M A N 1 »48

*49

T h e spiritual problem of m odern man is one of those ques­ tions which are so much a part of the age we live in that we cannot see them in the proper perspective. M odern man is an entirely new phenom enon; a m odern problem is one which has just arisen and whose answer still lies in the future. In speaking of the spiritual problem of m odern man we can at m ost frame a question, and we should perhaps frame it qu ite differently if we had but the faintest inkling of the answer the future w ill give. T h e question, moreover, seems rather vague; but the truth is that it has to do w ith som ething so universal that it exceeds the grasp of any single individual. W e have reason enough, therefore, to approach such a problem in all modesty and w ith the greatest caution. T h is open avowal of our lim itations seems to m e essential, because it is these problems m ore than any others w hich tem pt us to the use of high-sounding and empty words, and because I shall m yself be forced to say certain things w hich may sound imm oderate and incautious, and could easily lead us astray. T oo many of us already have fallen victim to our ow n grandiloquence. T o begin at once w ith an exam ple of such apparent lack of caution, I must say that the man we call m odern, the man who is aware o f the im m ediate present, is by no means the average man. H e is rather the man w ho stands upon a peak, or at the very edge of the world, the abyss of the future before him , above him the heavens, and below him the w hole of m ankind with a I [First p u b . as "Das Seelenproblem des m o d ern en M enschen,” Europaische R e v u e (Berlin), IV (1928), 700-715. Revised an d ex p an d ed in Seelenproblem e der Gegenw art (Zurich, 1931), p p . 401-35. T ra n s, by W . S. D ell an d Cary F. Baynes in M odern M a n in Search o f a Soul (L ondon a n d New York, 1933), pp. 226-54. T h e la tte r version has been consulted.—E d i t o r s .]

history th a t disappears in p rim ev al m ists. T h e m o d e rn m a n — or, let us say again, th e m a n of th e im m ed iate p resen t—is rarely m et w ith, for h e m u st be conscious to a su p erlativ e degree. Since to be w holly of th e p resen t m eans to be fully conscious of one’s existence as a m an, it req u ires th e m ost in ten siv e a n d extensive consciousness, w ith a m in im u m of unconsciousness. It m ust be clearly u n d e rsto o d th a t th e m ere fact of liv in g in the present does n o t m ake a m an m o d ern , for in th a t case everyone at p resen t alive w o uld be so. H e alo n e is m o d ern w ho is fully conscious of th e present. T h e m an w ho has a tta in e d consciousness of th e p re se n t is solitary. T h e “ m o d e rn ” m an has a t all tim es b een so, for every step tow ards fu lle r consciousness rem oves h im fu rth e r from his original, p u rely a n im al participation m y stiq u e w ith th e herd, from su b m ersio n in a com m on unconsciousness. Every step forw ard m eans te a rin g oneself loose from the m atern al w om b of unconsciousness in w hich th e mass of m en dw ells. E ven in a civilized co m m u n ity th e people w ho form , psychologically speaking, th e low est stra tu m live in a state of unconsciousness little d ifferen t fro m th a t o f p rim itives. T h o se o f th e succeeding strata live o n a level o f consciousness w hich corresponds to th e beginnings of h u m a n cu ltu re , w hile those of the highest stra tu m have a consciousness th a t reflects th e life of th e last few cen­ turies. O n ly th e m an w ho is m o d ern in o u r m e a n in g of th e term really lives in th e p resen t; he alone has a present-day conscious­ ness, an d he alone finds th a t th e ways of life o n those e arlier levels have b eg u n to pall u p o n him . T h e values a n d strivings of those past w orlds no lo n g er in tere st h im save from th e his­ torical sta n d p o in t. T h u s he has becom e " u n h isto ric a l” in th e deepest sense a n d has estranged him self from the mass of m en who live e n tire ly w ith in th e b o u n d s of tra d itio n . In d eed , he is com pletely m o d e rn only w hen he has com e to the very edge of the w orld, leaving b e h in d h im all th a t has been discarded an d outgrow n, an d acknow ledging th a t he stands before the N o th in g o u t of w hich A ll m ay grow .2 T h is sounds so g ran d th a t it b o rd ers suspiciously on bathos, for n o th in g is easier th a n to affect a consciousness of th e pres­ ent. A g reat h o rd e of w orthless p eo p le do in fact give them selves 2 f i n this, your N othing, I m ay find m y A ll!" F a u st, P a rt T w o .— T r a n s .]

a deceptive a ir of m o d e rn ity by sk ip p in g th e various stages of d ev elo p m en t a n d th e tasks of life they rep resen t. Suddenly they a p p e a r by the side o f th e tru ly m o d ern m an —u p ro o te d w raiths, b lo o d su ck in g ghosts whose em p tin ess casts d iscred it u p o n h im in his u n en v iab le loneliness. T h u s it is th a t the few present-day m en are seen by th e u n d isc e rn in g eyes of th e masses only th ro u g h th e dism al veil of those spectres, th e pseudo-m oderns, a n d are confused w ith them . I t c a n n o t be help ed ; th e “m o d e rn ” m an is q u estio n ab le a n d suspect, a n d has b een so a t all tim es, b e g in n in g w ith Socrates a n d Jesus. >5* A n ho n est adm ission of m o d ern ity m eans v o lu n ta rily declar­ in g oneself b a n k ru p t, tak in g th e vows of poverty a n d chastity in a new sense, a n d —w h at is still m o re p a in fu l—re n o u n c in g the halo of sanctity w hich history bestows. T o be “ u n h isto ric a l” is th e P ro m eth ea n sin, an d in this sense th e m o d ern m an is sinful. A h ig h e r level of consciousness is like a b u rd e n o f g u ilt. B ut, as I have said, only th e m an w h o has o u tg ro w n th e stages of con­ sciousness b e lo n g in g to th e past, a n d has am ply fulfilled the d u ties a p p o in te d for h im by his w orld, can achieve fu ll con­ sciousness of th e present. T o d o this he m u st be so und a n d p ro ­ ficient in th e best sense—a m an w ho has achieved as m uch as o th e r people, an d even a little m ore. I t is these q u alities w hich en ab le h im to gain th e n e x t h ig h est level of consciousness. '53 I know th a t th e idea of proficiency is especially re p u g n a n t to th e pseudo-m oderns, fo r it rem in d s th em u n p leasan tly of th e ir trickery. T h is, how ever, sh o u ld n o t p rev en t us from tak ­ in g it as o u r c rite rio n of th e m o d e rn m an. W e are even forced to d o so, for unless he is p roficient, th e m a n w ho claim s to be m o d ern is n o th in g b u t a trick ster. H e m ust be proficient in the high est degree, for unless he can a to n e by creative ab ility for his b reak w ith tra d itio n , h e is m erely disloyal to th e past. T o deny th e past for th e sake of b e in g conscious only of th e p resen t w o u ld be sheer fu tility . T o d a y has m ean in g only if it stands b etw een yesterday a n d tom orrow . I t is a process of tra n sitio n th a t form s th e lin k betw een past a n d fu tu re . O nly th e m an who is conscious of th e p resen t in this sense m ay call him self m o d ­ ern. >54 M any people call them selves m o d ern —especially the pseudo­ m oderns. T h e re fo re th e really m o d e rn m an is often to be fo u n d am o n g those w ho call them selves old-fashioned. T h e y d o this 76

firstly in o rd e r to m ak e am ends for th e ir g u ilty b reak w ith tra d i­ tio n by laying all th e m o re em phasis on th e past, a n d secondly in o rd e r to av o id th e m isfo rtu n e o f b ein g tak en fo r p seu d o ­ m oderns. Every good q u a lity has its b ad side, a n d n o th in g good can com e in to th e w o rld w ith o u t a t once p ro d u c in g a c o rre ­ sp o n d in g evil. T h is p a in fu l fact re n d ers illu so ry th e feelin g of e la tio n th a t so o fte n goes w ith consciousness of th e p re s e n t— th e feeling th a t we are th e c u lm in a tio n of th e w hole h isto ry of m an k in d , th e fu lfilm e n t a n d e n d -p ro d u c t of countless g e n e ra ­ tions. A t best it sh o u ld b e a p ro u d adm ission of o u r poverty: we are also th e d is a p p o in tm e n t of th e hopes a n d ex p ectatio n s of th e ages. T h in k o f n early tw o th o u san d years of C h ristia n Id e a l­ ism follow ed, n o t by th e r e tu r n of th e M essiah a n d th e heavenly m ille n n iu m , b u t by th e W o rld W a r am o n g C h ristia n n a tio n s w ith its b a rb e d w ire a n d p o iso n gas. W h a t a c a ta stro p h e in heaven a n d o n earth ! »55 In th e face o f such a p ic tu re we m ay w ell grow h u m b le again. I t is tru e th a t m o d e m m a n is a c u lm in a tio n , b u t to m o rro w he w ill be surpassed. H e is in d e ed th e p ro d u c t of a n age-old d e ­ v elo p m en t, b u t h e is a t th e sam e tim e th e w orst co n ceiv ab le d isa p p o in tm e n t o f th e hopes of m a n k in d . T h e m o d e rn m an is conscious o f this. H e has seen how b en eficen t are science, tech ­ nology, a n d o rg an izatio n , b u t also how catastro p h ic they can be. H e has likew ise seen how all w ell-m eaning g o v ern m en ts have so th o ro u g h ly pav ed th e way fo r peace o n th e p rin c ip le “in tim e of peace p re p a re fo r w a r” th a t E u ro p e has n e a rly gone to rack a n d r u in . A n d as for ideals, n e ith e r th e C h ristia n C h u rch , n o r th e b ro th e rh o o d of m an , n o r in te rn a tio n a l social dem ocracy, n o r th e so lid a rity of eco nom ic in tere sts has stood u p to th e acid test of reality . T oday, ten years a fte r th e w ar,3 we observe on ce m o re th e sam e o p tim ism , th e sam e organizations, th e sam e p o litic al asp iratio n s, th e sam e phrases a n d catchw ords a t w ork. H o w can we b u t fear th a t they w ill in e v ita b ly lead to fu rth e r catastrophes? A g reem en ts to o u tlaw w ar leave us scep­ tical, ev en w h ile w e w ish th em every possible success. A t b o t­ tom , b e h in d every such p alliativ e m easure th e re is a g n aw in g d o u b t. I believe I am n o t e x ag g eratin g w h en I say th a t m o d e rn 8 [T his essay was o rig in ally w ritte n

in

1928.—E d i t o r s .]

m an has suffered an alm ost fatal shock, psychologically speak­ ing, and as a result has fallen in to profound uncertainty. !56 T hese statem ents m ake it clear enough th at my views are coloured by a professional bias. A doctor always spies o u t dis­ eases, and I cannot cease to be a doctor. B ut it is essential to the physician’s art th at he should not discover diseases w here none exists. I will therefore no t m ake the assertion th at W estern m an, and the w hite m an in particular, is sick, or that the W est­ ern w orld is on the verge of collapse. I am in no way com petent to pass such a judgm ent. »57 W henever you hear anyone talking about a cultu ral o r even ab o u t a hum an problem , you should never forget to in q u ire who the speaker really is. T h e m ore general the problem , the m ore he will smuggle his own, m ost personal psychology into the account he gives of it. T h is can, w ithout a doubt, lead to intolerable distortions and false conclusions w hich may have very serious consequences. O n the o th er hand, the very fact that a general problem has gripped and assim ilated the whole of a person is a guarantee that the speaker has really experienced it, and perhaps gained som ething from his sufferings. H e will then reflect the problem for us in his personal life and thereby show us a tru th . B ut if he projects his ow n psychology into the problem , he falsifies it by his personal bias, and on the pretence of presenting it objectively so distorts it th at no tru th emerges b u t m erely a deceptive fiction. *5® It is of course only from my own experience w ith oth er per­ sons and with myself that I draw m y knowledge of the spiritual problem of m odern m an. I know som ething of the intim ate psychic life of m any hundreds of educated persons, both sick an d healthy, com ing from every q u a rte r of the civilized, w hite w orld; and upon this experience I base m y statem ents. No d o u b t I can draw only a one-sided picture, for everything I have observed lies in the psyche—it is all inside. I m ust add at once th at this is a rem arkable fact in itself, for the psyche is no t always and everywhere to be found on the inside. T h e re are peoples and epochs w here it is found outside, because they were wholly unpsychological. As exam ples we may choose any of the ancient civilizations, b u t especially th at of Egypt w ith its m onu­ m ental objectivity and its naive confession of sins th at have not been com m itted. W e can no m ore feel psychic problem s lurk in g

b eh in d th e A pis tom bs of S aqqara a n d the P yram ids th a n we can b e h in d th e m usic of Bach. 159 W h en ev er th ere exists some e x tern al form , be it an id eal or a ritu a l, by w hich all th e yearnings an d hopes of th e soul are adequately expressed—as for instance in a liv in g re lig io n —th en we may say th a t th e psyche is o utside an d th a t th e re is n o psy­ chic p ro b lem , ju st as th e re is th e n n o unconscious in o u r sense of th e w ord. I n consonance w ith this tru th , th e discovery of psychology falls en tirely w ith in th e last decades, alth o u g h long before th a t m an was introspective a n d in te llig e n t en o u g h to recognize the facts th a t are th e su b ject-m atter of psychology. I t was th e sam e w ith technical know ledge. T h e R om ans w ere fam iliar w ith all th e m echanical p rin cip les a n d physical facts w hich w o u ld have en ab le d th em to co n stru ct a steam engine, b u t all th a t cam e of it was th e toy m ade by H e ro of A lex an d ria. T h e reason fo r this is th a t th ere was no co m p ellin g necessity to go fu rth er. T h is n eed arose only w ith the enorm ous division of la b o u r a n d th e grow th of specialization in th e n in e te e n th century. So also a sp iritu a l n eed has p ro d u ced in o u r tim e the “discovery” of psychology. T h e psychic facts still existed earlier, of course, b u t they d id n o t a ttra c t a tte n tio n —n o one n o ticed them . P eople g ot alo n g w ith o u t them . B ut today we can no longer get alo n g unless we pay a tte n tio n to th e psyche. 160 i t was m en of th e m edical profession w ho w ere the first to learn this tru th . F o r th e priest, th e psyche can only be som e­ th in g th a t needs fittin g in to a recognized form o r system of belief in o rd e r to en su re its u n d istu rb e d fu n ctio n in g . So long as this system gives tru e expression to life, psychology can be n o th in g b u t a technical a d ju v a n t to h ealth y living, a n d the psyche c a n n o t b e reg ard ed as a factor su i generis. W h ile m an still lives as a h erd -an im al he has no psyche of his ow n, n o r does he need any, except th e usual b elief in th e im m o rta lity of the soul. B u t as soon as h e has o u tg ro w n w h atev er local form of religion he was b o rn to—as soon as this relig io n can no lo n g er em brace his life in all its fullness—th en the psyche becom es a factor in its ow n rig h t w hich can n o t be d ealt w ith by th e cus­ tom ary m easures. I t is for this reason th a t we today have a psy­ chology fo u n d ed on experience, an d n o t u p o n articles of faith o r th e postulates of any philosophical system. T h e very fact th at we have such a psychology is to m e sym ptom atic of a p ro fo u n d

convulsion of th e collective psyche. F or th e collective psyche shows th e same p a tte rn of change as the psyche of th e in d iv id ­ ual. So long as all goes well a n d all o u r psychic energies find an o u tle t in ad eq u a te a n d w ell-regulated ways, we are d istu rb e d by n o th in g from w ith in . N o u n c e rta in ty o r d o u b t besets us, a n d we cannot be divid ed against ourselves. B u t no sooner are one or tw o channels of psychic activity blocked u p th a n p h en o m en a of o b stru ctio n appear. T h e stream tries to flow back against the c u rre n t, the in n e r m an w ants so m eth in g d ifferen t from the o u te r m an, an d we are at w ar w ith ourselves. O nly th en , in this situ a tio n of distress, do we discover th e psyche as som ething w hich thw arts o u r w ill, w hich is strange a n d even hostile to us, a n d w hich is in c o m p a tib le w ith o u r conscious sta n d p o in t. F re u d ’s psychoanalytic en deavours show this process in the clearest way. T h e very first th in g he discovered was th e exist­ ence of sexually perverse an d crim in al fantasies w hich a t th e ir face value are w holly in co m p a tib le w ith th e conscious o u tlo o k of civilized m an. A person w ho a d o p ted the s ta n d p o in t of these fantasies w ould be n o th in g less th a n a reb el, a crim in al, o r a m adm an. W e can n o t suppose th a t th e unconscious o r h in te rla n d of m a n ’s m in d has developed this aspect only in re c e n t tim es. P ro b ab ly it was always th ere, in every c u ltu re . A n d alth o u g h every c u ltu re h ad its d estru ctiv e o p p o n en t, a H e ro stratu s w ho b u rn e d dow n its tem ples, n o c u ltu re before ours was ever forced to take these psychic u n d e rc u rre n ts in deadly earnest. T h e psyche was m erely p a rt of a m etaphysical system of som e sort. B u t th e conscious, m o d ern m an can n o lo n g er re fra in from acknow ledging th e m ig h t of th e psyche, despite the m ost s tre n u ­ ous a n d dogged efforts at self-defence. T h is distinguishes o u r tim e from ail others. W e can n o lo n g er deny th a t th e d ark stirrin g s of th e unconscious are active pow ers, th a t psychic forces exist w hich, for th e p rese n t at least, can n o t be fitted in to o u r ra tio n a l w o rld order. W e have even elevated th em in to a science—one m o re proof of how seriously we take th em . P revi­ ous cen tu ries co u ld th ro w th em aside u n n o ticed ; fo r us they are a s h irt of Nessus w hich we can n o t strip off. T h e re v o lu tio n in o u r conscious outlook, b ro u g h t a b o u t by th e catastro p hic results of th e W o rld W ar, shows itself in o u r in n e r life by th e sh a tte rin g of o u r faith in ourselves a n d o u r 80

ow n w orth. W e used to regard foreigners as p o litical a n d m o ral repro b ates, b u t th e m o d e rn m an is forced to recognize th a t he is politically a n d m o rally ju st like an y o n e else. W hereas fo rm erly I believed it was m y b o u n d e n d u ty to call others to o rd er, I m ust now a d m it th a t I n eed callin g to o rd e r myself, a n d th a t I w ould do b e tte r to set m y ow n house to rights first. I a d m it this the m o re read ily because I realize o nly too w ell th a t m y fa ith in th e ra tio n a l o rg an izatio n of th e w o rld —th a t old d ream of th e m ille n n iu m w h en peace a n d h arm o n y re ig n —has grow n pale. M odern m a n ’s scepticism in this respect has ch illed his e n th u s i­ asm for politics a n d w orld-reform ; m o re th a n th at, it is the w orst possible basis fo r a sm ooth flow of psychic energies in to the o u te r w orld, ju s t as d o u b t c o n cern in g th e m o ra lity of a frie n d is b o u n d to p reju d ic e the re la tio n sh ip an d h a m p e r its d evelopm ent. T h ro u g h his scepticism m o d ern m an is th ro w n back o n him self; his energies flow tow ards th e ir source, a n d the collision washes to th e surface those psychic co n ten ts w h ich are a t all tim es th ere, b u t lie h id d e n in th e silt so long as th e stream flows sm oothly in its course. H o w to tally d ifferen t d id th e w o rld ap p ear to m edieval m an! F o r h im th e ea rth was etern ally fixed a n d a t rest in th e cen tre o f th e universe, circled by a s u n th a t solicitously bestow ed its w arm th. M en w ere all c h ild re n of G od u n d e r th e lo v in g care o f th e M ost H ig h , w ho p re p a re d th e m for etern al blessedness; a n d all knew exactly w hat they sh o u ld do a n d how th ey sh o u ld c o n d u ct them selves in o rd e r to rise from a c o rru p tib le w o rld to a n in c o rru p tib le a n d joyous existence. Such a life n o lo n g er seems real to us, even in o u r dream s. Sci­ ence has lo n g ago to rn this lovely veil to shreds. T h a t age lies as far b e h in d as ch ild h o o d , w hen o n e ’s ow n fa th e r was u n q u e s ­ tion ab ly th e handsom est a n d strongest m a n o n earth . l6S M o d ern m a n has lost all the m etaphysical certain tie s of his m edieval b ro th e r, a n d set u p in th e ir place th e ideals of m a­ terial security, g en eral w elfare a n d h u m a n ita ria n ism . B u t a n y ­ one w ho has still m an ag ed to preserve these ideals u n sh ak en m ust have b een in jec te d w ith a m o re th a n o rd in a ry dose of optim ism . E ven secu rity has g o n e by th e board , fo r m o d e rn m an has b e g u n to see th a t every step fo rw ard in m ateria l “progress” steadily increases th e th re a t of a still m o re s tu p e n ­ dous catastrophe. T h e im a g in a tio n shrin k s in te rro r from such a p ictu re . W h a t are we to th in k w h en the g reat cities today are 81

perfecting defence measures against gas attacks, and even prac­ tise them in dress rehearsals? It can only mean that these attacks have already been planned and provided for, again on the prin­ ciple “in tim e of peace prepare for war.” Let man but accum u­ late sufficient engines of destruction and the devil w ith in him w ill soon be unable to resist putting them to their fated use. It is w ell known that fire-arms go off of themselves if only enough of them are together. An intim ation of the terrible law that governs blind con­ tingency, which Heraclitus called the rule of enantiodrom ia (a running towards the opposite), now steals upon modern man through the by-ways of his m ind, ch illin g him w ith fear and paralysing his faith in the lasting effectiveness of social and political measures in the face of these monstrous forces. If he turns away from the terrifying prospect of a blind world in which building and destroying successively tip the scales, and then gazes into the recesses of his own m ind, he w ill discover a chaos and a darkness there which everyone w ould gladly ignore. Science has destroyed even this last refuge; what was once a sheltering haven has becom e a cesspool. l65 A nd yet it is almost a relief to com e upon so m uch evil in the depths of our own psyche. H ere at least, we think, is the Toot of all the evil in m ankind. Even though we are shocked and disillusioned at first, we still feel, just because these things are part of our psyche, that we have them more or less in hand and can correct them or at any rate effectively suppress them. W e like to assume that, if we succeeded in this, we should at least have rooted out some fraction of the evil in the world. Given a widespread knowledge of the unconscious, everyone could see when a statesman was being led astray by his own bad motives. T h e very newspapers w ould p ull him up: “Please have yourself analysed; you are suffering from a repressed fathercom plex.” »66 I have purposely chosen this grotesque exam ple to show to what absurdities we are led by the illusion that because som e­ thing is psychic it is under our control. It is, however, true that m uch of the evil in the world comes from the fact that man in general is hopelessly unconscious, as it is also true that w ith in ­ creasing insight w e can com bat this evil at its source i n o u t 52

selves, in th e sam e way th a t science enables us to d eal effectively w ith in ju rie s in flicted from w ith o u t. 167 T h e r a p id a n d w o rldw ide g ro w th of a psychological in te re st over th e last tw o decades shows u n m istak ab ly th a t m o d e rn m an is tu rn in g his a tte n tio n from o u tw a rd m ateria l things to his own in n e r processes. E xpressionism in a r t p ro p h etic ally a n tic i­ p ated this su b jectiv e d ev elo p m en t, for all a rt in tu itiv e ly a p p re ­ hends co m in g changes in th e collective unconsciousness. 168 T h e psychological in te re st of th e p resen t tim e is an in d ic a ­ tio n th a t m o d e rn m a n expects so m e th in g from th e psyche w hich the o u te r w o rld has n o t given h im : d o ubtless so m e th in g w hich o u r re lig io n o u g h t to co n tain , b u t n o lo n g er does co n ta in , a t least fo r m o d e rn m an. F or h im th e various form s of re lig io n no long er a p p e a r to com e fro m w ith in , from th e psyche; they seem m ore like item s fro m th e in v e n to ry o f th e o u tsid e w orld. N o sp irit n o t of this w o rld vouchsafes h im in n e r rev elatio n ; in ­ stead, he tries on a variety of relig io n s a n d beliefs as if th ey w ere Sunday a ttire , on ly to lay th em aside ag ain like w o rn -o u t clothes. >69 Y et he is som ehow fascinated by the alm ost path o lo g ical m a n i­ festations fro m th e h in te rla n d of th e psyche, difficult th o u g h it is to e x p lain h o w so m eth in g w hich all previous ages have re ­ jected sh o u ld su d d e n ly becom e in terestin g . T h a t th e re is a g en ­ eral in te re st in these m atters can n o t b e d en ied , h ow ever m u ch it offends ag ain st good taste. I am n o t th in k in g m erely of th e in tere st tak en in psychology as a science, o r o f th e still n a rro w e r in terest in th e psychoanalysis of F reu d , b u t of th e w idespread an d ever-grow ing in te re st in all sorts of psychic p h en o m en a, in clu d in g sp iritu a lism , astrology, T h eo so p h y , parapsychology, a n d so fo rth . T h e w o rld has seen n o th in g like it since th e end of th e sev en teen th cen tu ry . W e can com pare it only to th e flow ering o f G n o stic th o u g h t in th e first a n d second c en tu ries after C h rist. T h e sp iritu a l c u rre n ts of o u r tim e have, in fact, a deep affinity w ith G nosticism . T h e re is even a n “Eglise gnostiq u e de la F ra n ce ,” a n d I know of tw o schools in G erm an y w hich o p en ly d eclare them selves G nostic. T h e m ost im pressive m ov em en t n u m eric ally is u n d o u b te d ly T h eo so p h y , to g e th e r w ith its c o n tin e n ta l sister, A n th ro p o so p h y ; these are p u re G nos­ ticism in H in d u dress. C o m p ared w ith th em th e in te re st in sci­ entific psychology is n eg lig ib le. W h a t is strik in g a b o u t these

G nostic systems is th a t they are based exclusively o n th e m a n i­ festations of th e unconscious, a n d th a t th e ir moTal teachings p e n e tra te in to th e d ark side of life, as is clearly show n by th e refu rb ish e d E u ro p ean version of Kundalini-yoga. T h e same is tru e of parapsychology, as everyone acq u ain ted w ith this su b ­ ject w ill agree. *7° T h e passionate in te re st in these m ovem ents u n d o u b te d ly arises from psychic energy w hich can no longer be invested in obsolete relig io u s form s. F or this reason such m ovem ents have a g en u in ely relig io u s character, even w hen they p re te n d to be scientific. It changes n o th in g w h en R u d o lf S tein er calls his A n th ro p o so p h y “sp iritu a l science,” o r w hen M rs. E ddy invents a “C h ristian Science.” T h e se attem p ts at concealm ent m erely show th a t relig io n has grow n suspect—alm ost as suspect as p o l­ itics an d w orld-reform . *7* I do n o t believe th a t I am going too far w hen I say th a t m o d ern m an, in co n trast to his n in e teen th -cen tu ry b ro th e r, tu rn s to th e psyche w ith very g reat expectations, a n d does so w ith o u t reference to any tra d itio n a l creed b u t r a th e r w ith a view to G nostic experience. T h e fact th a t all th e m ovem ents I have m e n tio n ed give them selves a scientific veneer is n o t ju st a gro tesq u e caricatu re o r a m asquerade, b u t a positive sign th a t they are actually p u rsu in g “science,” i.e., know ledge, instead of faith, w hich is th e essence of th e W estern form s of religion. M o d ern m an ab h o rs faith a n d th e religions based u p o n it. H e holds th em valid only so far as th e ir know ledge-content seems to accord w ith his ow n ex p erien ce of th e psychic b ackground. H e w ants to k n o w —to exp erien ce for him self. 17a T h e age of discovery has o nly ju st com e to an en d in o u r day, w hen n o p a rt of th e ea rth rem ain s u n ex p lo red ; it began w hen m en w ould no longer believe th a t th e H y p erb o rean s w ere one-footed m onsters, o r so m eth in g of th a t k ind, b u t w anted to find o u t a n d see w ith th e ir ow n eyes w hat existed bey o n d th e b o u n d a rie s of th e k n o w n w orld. O u r age is ap p are n tly settin g o u t to discover w h at exists in th e psyche beyond consciousness. T h e q u estio n asked in every sp iritu alistic circle is: W h a t h a p ­ pens a fte r th e m e d iu m has lost consciousness? Every T h e o sophist asks: W h a t shall I ex p erien ce a t the h ig h e r levels of consciousness? T h e q u estio n w hich every astro lo g er asks is: W h a t are the o p erativ e forces th a t d ete rm in e m y fate despite

my conscious in te n tio n ? A n d every psychoanalyst w ants to know: W h a t are th e unconscious drives b e h in d th e neurosis? 173 O u r age w ants to ex p erien ce the psyche for itself. I t w ants orig in al ex p erien ce a n d n o t assum ptions, th o u g h it is w illin g to m ake use o f all th e ex istin g assum ptions as a m eans to this end, in clu d in g those o f th e recognized religions an d th e a u th e n tic sciences. T h e E u ro p e a n of yesterday w ill feel a slig h t sh u d d e r ru n dow n his sp in e w h en he gazes m ore deeply in to these delvings. N o t only does h e consider th e su b ject of this so-called research o bscure a n d shuddersom e, b u t even th e m ethods em ­ ployed seem to h im a shocking m isuse of m a n ’s finest in tellec­ tu al atta in m e n ts. W h a t is th e professional a stro n o m er to say w hen he is to ld th a t a t least a th o u san d tim es m o re horoscopes are cast today th a n w ere cast th re e h u n d re d years ago? W h at w ill th e e d u ca to r a n d advocate of p hilosophical e n lig h te n m e n t say a b o u t th e fact th a t th e w o rld has n o t grow n p o o re r by a single su p erstitio n since th e days of a n tiq u ity ? F re u d him self, the fo u n d e r o f psychoanalysis, has tak en the greatest pain s to thro w as g larin g a lig h t as possible o n th e d irt a n d darkness a n d evil of th e psychic b a ck g ro u n d , a n d to in te rp re t it in such a way as to m ake us lose all desire to look for an y th in g b e h in d it except refuse a n d sm u t. H e d id n o t succeed, a n d his a tte m p t at d eterren ce has even b ro u g h t a b o u t th e exact o p p o site—an a d m ira tio n for all this filth. Such a perverse p h en o m en o n w ould norm ally be in e x p lic ab le w ere it n o t th a t even th e scatologists are d raw n by th e secret fascination of th e psyche?. , 74 T h e re can be n o d o u b t th a t from the b e g in n in g of the n in e ­ teen th c en tu ry —ever since th e tim e of th e F rench R e v o lu tio n — the psyche has m oved m o re a n d m o re in to th e fo re g ro u n d of m a n ’s in terest, a n d w ith a steadily increasing pow er of a ttra c ­ tion. T h e e n th ro n e m e n t of th e G oddess of R eason in N o tre D am e seems to have been a sym bolic g esture of g reat signif­ icance fo r th e W estern w o rld —ra th e r like th e hew in g d ow n of W o ta n ’s oak by C h ristian m issionaries. O n b o th occasions no avenging b o lt from heaven stru ck th e b lasp h em er dow n. *75 I t is certain ly m o re th an an am u sin g freak of history th a t ju st a t th e tim e of th e R e v o lu tio n a F ren ch m an , A n q u e til d u P erron, sh o u ld be liv in g in In d ia an d , at the b eg in n in g of the n in e te e n th cen tu ry , b ro u g h t back w ith h im a tra n slatio n of the O up nek’hatj a collection of fifty U panishads, w hich gave th e

W est its first d eep in sig h t in to th e baffling m in d of th e East. T o th e h isto rian this is a m ere coincidence in d e p e n d e n t of th e histo rical nexus of cause a n d effect. My m edical bias prev en ts m e from seeing it sim ply as a n accident. E verything h ap p e n e d in accordance w ith a psychological law w h ich is u n failin g ly v alid in personal affairs. If a n y th in g of im p o rtan ce is d ev alu ed in o u r conscious life, a n d perishes—so ru n s th e law—th e re arises a com p en satio n in th e unconscious. W e m ay see in th is an analogy to th e conserv atio n of energy in th e physical w orld, for o u r psychic processes also have a q u a n tita tiv e , energic aspect. N o psychic value can d isap p ear w ith o u t being rep laced by a n ­ o th e r o f eq u iv alen t in ten sity . T h is is a fu n d a m e n ta l ru le w h ich is rep eated ly verified in th e daily p ractice of th e psychotherapist a n d never fails. T h e d o cto r in m e refuses p o in t b la n k to co n ­ sider th e life of a p eo p le as so m eth in g th a t does n o t co n fo rm to psychological law. F o r h im th e psyche of a p eo p le is only a som ew hat m o re com plex s tru c tu re th a n th e psyche of an in d i­ v id u al. M oreover, has n o t a p o e t spoken of th e “n a tio n s of his so u l”? A nd q u ite correctly, it seems to me, for in one o f its aspects th e psyche is n o t in d iv id u a l, b u t is derived from th e n a tio n , from th e collectivity, from h u m a n ity even. I n som e way o r o th e r we are p a rt of a single, all-em bracing psyche, a single “greatest m an ," th e h o m o m a x im u s , to q u o te Sw eden­ borg. >76 A n d so we can d raw a p arallel: ju st as in m e, a single in d i­ v id u al, th e darkness calls fo rth a h e lp fu l light, so it does in the psychic life of a people. I n th e crow ds th a t p o u red in to N o tre D am e, b e n t on d estru ctio n , d a rk a n d nam eless forces w ere a t w ork th a t sw ept th e in d iv id u a l off his feet; these forces w orked also u p o n A n q u e til d u P e rro n a n d provoked an answ er w hich has com e dow n in history a n d speaks to us th ro u g h th e m o u th s of S ch o p en h au er a n d N ietzsche. F o r h e b ro u g h t th e E astern m in d to th e W est, a n d its influence u p o n us we c a n n o t as yet m easure. L e t us bew are of u n d e re stim a tin g it! So far, indeed, th e re is little of it to be seen o n th e in tellectu al surface: a h a n d fu l of o rientalists, o n e o r tw o B u d d h ist enthusiasts, a few som bre celebrities lik e M adam e Blavatsky an d A n n ie B esant w ith h e r K rish n am u rti. T h e se m anifestations are lik e tin y scattered islands in th e ocean of m an k in d ; in re a lity they are th e peaks of su b m a rin e m o untain-ranges. T h e c u ltu ra l Philis86

tin e s b e lie v e d u n t i l re c e n tly th a t a stro lo g y h a d b e e n d isp o se d o f lo n g sin ce a n d was s o m e th in g th a t c o u ld safely b e la u g h e d at. B u t to d ay , ris in g o u t o f th e so cial d eep s, it k n o c k s a t th e d o o rs o f th e u n iv e rs itie s fro m w h ic h it w as b a n is h e d so m e th re e h u n d r e d years ago. T h e sam e is tr u e o f E a s te rn id eas; th ey ta k e r o o t in th e lo w e r levels a n d slow ly g ro w to th e su rfa c e . W h e re d id th e five o r six m illio n Swiss fran c s fo r th e A n th ro p o so p h ist te m p le a t D o rn a c h c o m e from ? C e rta in ly n o t fro m o n e in d iv id u a l. U n f o r tu n a te ly th e re a re n o sta tistic s to te ll us th e e x ac t n u m b e r o f a v o w ed T h e o s o p h is ts to d ay , n o t to m e n ­ tio n th e u n a v o w e d . B u t w e c a n b e s u re th e re a re se v e ra l m il­ lio ns o f th e m . T o th is n u m b e r w e m u s t a d d a few m illio n S p iritu a lists o f C h ris tia n o r T h e o s o p h is t lean in g s. *77 G re a t in n o v a tio n s n e v e r co m e fro m a b o v e ; th e y c o m e in v a r i­ ab ly fro m b e lo w , ju s t as tre e s n e v e r g ro w fro m th e sky d o w n ­ w ard , b u t u p w a rd fro m th e e a rth . T h e u p h e a v a l o f o u r w o rld a n d th e u p h e a v a l o f o u r consciousness a re o n e a n d th e sam e. E v e ry th in g h as b e c o m e re la tiv e a n d th e re fo re d o u b tf u l. A n d w h ile m a n , h e s ita n t a n d q u e s tio n in g , c o n te m p la te s a w o rld th a t is d is tra c te d w ith tre a tie s o f p eace a n d p acts o f frie n d s h ip , w ith d em o cracy a n d d ic ta to rs h ip , c a p ita lis m a n d B o lsh ev ism , h is s p irit y earn s fo r a n a n sw e r th a t w ill a lla y th e tu r m o il o f d o u b t a n d u n c e rta in ty . A n d i t is ju s t th e p e o p le fro m th e o b s c u re r levels w h o fo llo w th e u n c o n sc io u s d riv e o f th e p sy ch e; i t is th e m u c h -d e rid e d , s ile n t fo lk o f th e la n d , w h o a re less in fe c te d w ith a c a d e m ic p re ju d ic e s th a n th e s h in in g c e le b ritie s a re w o n t to be. L o o k e d a t fro m ab o v e, th e y o fte n p re s e n t a d re a ry o r la u g h a b le sp ectacle; y e t th e y a re as im p ressiv ely sim p le as th o se G a lile a n s w h o w e re o n c e c a lle d blessed. Is it n o t to u c h in g to see th e o ffsco u rin g s o f m a n ’s psyche g a th e r e d to g e th e r in c o m ­ p e n d ia a fo o t th ic k ? W e fin d th e m e re st b a b b lin g s , th e m o st a b s u rd a ctio n s, th e w ild e st fa n ta sie s re c o rd e d w ith s c ru p u lo u s c are in th e v o lu m e s o f A n t h r o p o p h y t e i a j4 w h ile m e n lik e H a v e ­ lock E llis a n d F r e u d h a v e d e a lt w ith lik e m a tte rs in se rio u s treatises w h ic h h a v e b e e n a c c o rd e d a ll scie n tific h o n o u rs . T h e i r re a d in g p u b lic is s c a tte re d o v e r th e b r e a d th o f th e c iv iliz ed , w h ite w o rld . H o w a re w e to e x p la in th is zeal, th is a lm o s t fa n a tic a l w o rs h ip o f e v e ry th in g u n sav o u ry ? I t is b e c a u se th ese *

[See b ib lio g ra p h y .]

thin g s are psychological—they are of th e substance of th e psyche' a n d th erefo re as precious as fragm ents o f m an u sc rip t salvaged from a n c ie n t m iddens. Even th e secret a n d noisom e things of th e psyche are v a lu a b le to m o d e rn m an because they serve his purp o se. B u t w h at purpose? 178 F re u d prefixed to his In te rp re ta tio n of D ream s the m otto: F lectere si n eq u eo superos A ch ero n ta m o veb o —“l i I can n o t b e n d th e gods o n high, I w ill a t least set A cheron in u p ro a r.” B u t to w h at purpose? *79 T h e gods w hom we are called u p o n to d e th ro n e are the idolized values of o u r conscious w orld. N o th in g , as w e know , d iscred ited th e a n cien t gods so m u ch as th e ir love-scandals, and now h istory is re p e a tin g itself. P eo p le are laying b are th e d u b i­ ous fo u n d atio n s of o u r b e la u d e d v irtu es a n d in co m p arab le ideals, a n d are callin g o u t to us in triu m p h : “T h e re are y o u r m an-m ade gods, m ere snares a n d delusions ta in te d w ith h u m a n baseness—w h ited sepulchres fu ll of dead m e n ’s bones a n d of all uncleanness.” W e recognize a fam iliar strain, a n d th e G ospel w ords w hich we failed to digest a t C on firm atio n com e to life again. 180 I am d eeply convinced th a t these are n o t ju st vague a n ­ alogies. T h e re are too m any persons to w hom F re u d ia n psy­ chology is d e a re r th a n th e Gospels, a n d to w hom Bolshevism m eans m ore th a n civic v irtu e. A n d yet they are all o u r brothers, an d in each o f us th e re is at least one voice w hich seconds them , for in th e e n d th e re is one psyche w hich em braces us all. 181 T h e u n ex p ected re su lt of this d ev elo p m en t is th a t an u g lier face is p u t u p o n th e w orld. I t becom es so ugly th a t n o one can love it any longer; we c a n n o t even love ourselves, a n d in the en d th e re is n o th in g in th e o u te r w orld to draw us away from th e reality of th e life w ith in . H ere, n o d o u b t, we have th e tru e significance o f this w hole d ev elo p m ent. A fter all, w h at does T h eo sophy, w ith its doctrines of karm a a n d rein c a rn a tio n , seek to teach except th a t this w o rld o f app earance is b u t a tem p o rary h ealth -reso rt for th e m o rally un p erfected? I t depreciates the in trin sic v alue of th e present-day w o rld n o less rad ically th a n does th e m o d ern o u tlo o k , b u t w ith th e h elp of a d ifferen t tech­ n iq u e ; it does n o t vilify o u r w orld, b u t grants it only a relative m ea n in g in th a t it prom ises o th e r a n d h ig h e r w orlds. T h e resu lt in e ith e r case is th e same.

18s

I a d m it th a t a ll th ese ideas a re e x tre m e ly u n a c a d e m ic , th e tr u th b e in g th a t th e y to u c h m o d e rn m a n o n th e sid e w h e re h e is least co n scio u s. Is it a g a in a m e re c o in c id e n c e th a t m o d e r n th o u g h t h as h a d to co m e to te rm s w ith E in s te in ’s re la tiv ity th e o ry a n d w ith n u c le a r th e o rie s w h ic h le a d u s aw ay fro m d e ­ te rm in is m a n d b o r d e r o n th e in c o n c e iv a b le ? E v e n p h y sics is v o la tiliz in g o u r m a te ria l w o rld . I t is n o w o n d e r, th e n , in m y o p in io n , if m o d e rn m a n falls b a c k o n th e r e a lity o f p sy ch ic life a n d ex p ects fro m i t th a t c e rta in ty w h ic h th e w o rld d e n ie s h im . 183 S p iritu a lly th e W e s te rn w o rld is in a p re c a rio u s s itu a tio n , a n d th e d a n g e r is g r e a te r th e m o re w e b lin d o u rselv es to th e m erciless t r u t h w ith illu s io n s a b o u t o u r b e a u ty o f so u l. W e s te rn m a n lives in a th ic k c lo u d o f in c en se w h ic h h e b u r n s to h im s e lf so th a t his o w n c o u n te n a n c e m ay b e v e ile d fro m h im in th e sm oke. B u t h o w d o w e s trik e m e n o f a n o th e r c o lo u r? W h a t d o C h in a a n d I n d ia th in k o f us? W h a t feelin g s d o w e a ro u s e in th e b lack m an ? A n d w h a t a b o u t a ll th o se w h o m w e r o b o f th e ir lan d s a n d e x te r m in a te w ith r u m a n d v e n e re a l disease? ,84 I h a v e a n A m e ric a n I n d ia n fr ie n d w h o is a P u e b lo c h ie fta in . O n ce w h e n w e w e re ta lk in g c o n fid e n tia lly a b o u t th e w h ite m a n , h e said to m e : “ W e d o n ’t u n d e r s ta n d th e w h ite s. T h e y a re alw ays w a n tin g so m e th in g , alw ays restless, alw ays lo o k in g fo r so m e th in g . W h a t is it? W e d o n ’t k n o w . W e c a n ’t u n d e r s ta n d th e m . T h e y h a v e su ch s h a rp noses, su ch th in , c ru e l lip s, su ch lin es in th e ir faces. W e th in k th e y a re all crazy .” i85 M y fr ie n d h a d rec o g n ize d , w ith o u t b e in g a b le to n a m e it, th e A ry a n b ir d o f p re y w ith his in s a tia b le lu s t to lo r d i t in ev ery la n d , e v e n th o se th a t c o n c e rn h im n o t a t all. A n d h e h a d also n o te d th a t m e g a lo m a n ia o f o u rs w h ic h lead s us to su p p o se , a m o n g o th e r th in g s, th a t C h ris tia n ity is th e o n ly t r u t h a n d th e w h ite C h ris t th e o n ly re d e e m e r. A fte r s e ttin g th e w h o le E a st in tu rm o il w ith o u r scien ce a n d te ch n o lo g y , a n d e x a c tin g t r i b u te fro m it, w e sen d o u r m issio n a rie s e v en to C h in a . T h e c o m ed y o f C h ris tia n ity in A fric a is re a lly p itif u l. T h e r e th e s ta m p in g o u t o f po ly g am y , n o d o u b t h ig h ly p le a s in g to G o d , has g iv e n rise to p r o s titu tio n o n su ch a scale th a t in U g a n d a a lo n e tw e n ty th o u s a n d p o u n d s a re s p e n t a n n u a lly o n p re v e n tiv e s o f v e n e re a l in fe c tio n . A n d th e g o o d E u r o p e a n pays his m issio n a rie s fo r these e d ify in g a c h ie v e m e n ts! N e e d w e also m e n tio n th e sto ry o f su ffe rin g in P o ly n e sia a n d th e b lessin g s o f th e o p iu m tra d e ?

186

T h a t is how the E uropean looks w hen he is extricated from th e cloud of his own m oral incense. N o w onder th a t u n e arth in g th e psyche is like u n d e rta k in g a full-scale drainage operation. O nly a great idealist like F re u d could devote a lifetim e to such un clean w ork. It was n o t he who caused the bad smell, b u t all of us—we w ho th in k ourselves so clean and decent from sheer ignorance a n d the grossest self-deception. T h u s o u r psychology, the acquaintance w ith o u r own souls, begins in every respect from th e m ost repulsive end, th a t is to say w ith all those things w hich we do n ot wish to see. »87 B u t if the psyche consisted only of evil and w orthless things, n o pow er on earth could induce the norm al m an to find it attractive. T h a t is why people who see in T heosophy n o th in g b u t lam entable in tellectu al superficiality, an d in F re u d ian psy­ chology n o th in g b u t sensationalism , prophesy an early an d in ­ glorious end to these m ovem ents. T h e y overlook th e fact th at such m ovem ents derive th eir force from the fascination of the psyche, an d th at it w ill express itself in these forms u n til they are replaced by som ething better. T h ey are tran sitio n al or em ­ bryonic stages from w hich new and rip e r form s w ill em erge. *88 W e have n o t yet realized th a t W estern T heosophy is an am ateurish, indeed barbarous im itatio n of the East. W e are ju st b eg in n in g to take u p astrology again, w hich to the O rien ta l is his daily bread. O u r studies of sexual life, orig in atin g in V ienna a n d E ngland, are m atched or surpassed by H in d u teachings on this subject. O rien tal texts ten centuries old in tro d u ce us to philosophical relativism , w hile th e idea of indeterm inacy, newly broached in the W est, is the very basis of C hinese sci­ ence. As to o u r discoveries in psychology, R ichard W ilhelm has show n m e th a t certain com plicated psychic processes are rec­ ognizably described in a n cien t C hinese texts. Psychoanalysis itself and the lines of th o u g h t to w hich it gives rise—a develop­ m en t w hich we consider specifically W estern—are only a begin­ n e r’s attem p t com pared w ith w hat is an im m em orial a rt in the East. I t m ay n o t perhaps be know n th a t parallels betw een psy­ choanalysis and yoga have already been draw n by Oscar Schmitz.8 >89 A n o th er th in g we have n o t realized is th at w hile we are turns [Psychoanalyse und Yoga. See bibliography,]

in g th e m a te ria l w o rld o f th e E a st u p s id e d o w n w ith o u r te c h ­ n ic a l p ro ficie n c y , th e E ast w ith its s u p e r io r p sy ch ic p ro fic ie n c y is th ro w in g o u r s p ir itu a l w o rld in to c o n fu s io n . W e h a v e n e v e r yet h it u p o n th e th o u g h t th a t w h ile w e a re o v e rp o w e rin g th e O rie n t fro m w ith o u t, it m ay be fa s te n in g its h o ld o n u s fro m w ith in . S u c h a n id e a strik e s us as a lm o s t in sa n e , b e c a u se w e hav e eyes o n ly fo r o b v io u s cau sal c o n n e c tio n s a n d fa il to see th a t w e m u s t la y th e b la m e fo r th e c o n fu s io n o f o u r in te lle c tu a l m id d le class a t th e d o o rs o f M a x M u lle r, O ld e n b e r g , D e u ssen , W ilh e lm , a n d o th e rs lik e th e m . W h a t does th e e x a m p le o f th e R o m a n E m p ire te a c h us? A fte r th e c o n q u e s t o f A sia M in o r, R o m e b e c a m e A sia tic ; E u ro p e was in fe c te d by A sia a n d re m a in s so today. O u t o f C ilic ia cam e th e M ith ra ic c u lt, th e re lig io n o f th e R o m a n le g io n s, a n d it s p re a d fro m E g y p t to fo g -b o u n d B rita in . N e e d I p o in t o u t th e A siatic o rig in o f C h ris tia n ity ? •9° T h e T h e o s o p h is ts h a v e a n a m u s in g id e a th a t c e r ta in M a h a t­ m as, sea te d s o m e w h e re in th e H im a la y a s o r T i b e t , in s p ire a n d d ire c t ev ery m in d in th e w o rld . So stro n g , in fact, c a n b e th e in flu en c e o f th e E a s te rn b e lie f in m a g ic th a t E u ro p e a n s o f s o u n d m in d h a v e a ssu re d m e th a t ev ery g o o d th in g I say is u n ­ w ittin g ly in s p ire d in m e by th e M a h a tm a s, m y o w n in s p ira tio n s b e in g o f n o a c c o u n t w h a te v e r. T h i s m y th o f th e M a h a tm a s, w id ely c irc u la te d in th e W e s t a n d firm ly b e lie v e d , fa r fro m b e in g n o n sen se , is—lik e ev ery m y th —a n im p o r ta n t p sy ch o lo g ica l tr u th . I t seem s to b e q u ite tr u e th a t th e E ast is a t th e b o tto m o f th e s p iritu a l c h a n g e w e a re p a ssin g th ro u g h to d ay . O n ly , th is E ast is n o t a T i b e t a n m o n a ste ry fu ll o f M a h a tm a s, b u t lies e ssen tially w ith in us. I t is o u r o w n psyche, c o n s ta n tly a t w o rk c re a tin g n e w s p ir itu a l fo rm s a n d s p ir itu a l forces w h ic h m ay h e lp us to s u b d u e th e b o u n d le ss lu s t fo r p re y o f A ry a n m a n . W e sh all p e rh a p s c o m e to k n o w s o m e th in g o f th a t n a rro w in g o f h o riz o n s w h ic h h as g ro w n in th e E ast in to a d u b io u s q u ie t­ ism , a n d also s o m e th in g o f th a t s ta b ility w h ic h h u m a n e x iste n c e a c q u ire s w h e n th e c laim s o f th e s p ir it b e co m e as im p e ra tiv e as th e n ecessities o f social life. Y et in th is age o f A m e ric a n iz a tio n w e a re s till fa r fro m a n y th in g o f th e s o rt; it seem s to m e th a t w e a re o n ly a t th e th re s h o ld of a n ew s p ir itu a l ep o ch . I d o n o t w ish to pass m y self off as a p ro p h e t, b u t o n e c an h a rd ly a tte m p t to sk etch th e s p ir itu a l p ro b le m o f m o d e rn m a n w ith o u t m e n ­ tio n in g th e lo n g in g fo r re s t in a p e rio d o f u n re s t, th e lo n g in g

for secu rity in a n age of in sec u rity . I t is fro m n eed a n d distress th a t new form s of ex istence arise, a n d n o t fro m id ealistic re ­ q u ire m e n ts o r m ere wishes. 1JJ1 T o m e th e cru x of th e s p iritu a l p ro b le m today is to be fo u n d in th e fascin atio n w h ich th e psyche h o ld s fo r m o d e rn m an . If w e are pessim ists, w e shall call it a sign of decadence; if w e are op tim istically in c lin e d , we sh all see in it th e p ro m ise of a farre a c h in g s p iritu a l ch an g e in th e W e ste rn w orld. A t all events, it is a sig n ifican t p h e n o m e n o n . I t is th e m o re n o te w o rth y be­ cause it is ro o te d in th e d e e p e r social strata, a n d th e m o re im ­ p o r ta n t because it touches th o se irra tio n a l a n d —as h isto ry shows —in c alc u la b le psychic forces w h ich tra n sfo rm th e life of peo­ ples a n d civ ilizatio n s in ways th a t are u n fo reseen a n d u n fo re ­ seeable. T h e se are th e forces, still in v isib le to m an y persons today, w h ich a re a t th e b o tto m of th e p resen t “ psychological” in te re st. T h e fascin atio n o f th e psyche is n o t by a n y m eans a m o rb id p erversity; it is an a ttra c tio n so s tro n g th a t it does n o t s h rin k even fro m w h a t it finds re p e lle n t. *9* A lo n g th e g re a t highw ays of th e w o rld ev ery th in g seem s deso­ late a n d o u tw o rn . In stin ctiv e ly m o d e rn m an leaves th e tro d d e n p ath s to ex p lo re th e by-ways a n d lanes, ju s t as th e m a n of the G reco -R o m an w o rld cast off his d e fu n c t O ly m p ian gods an d tu rn e d to th e m ystery cu lts o f A sia. O u r in stin c t tu rn s o u tw ard , a n d a p p ro p ria te s E a stern th eo so p h y a n d m agic; b u t it also tu rn s in w ard , a n d leads us to c o n te m p la te th e d a rk b ac k g ro u n d o f the psyche. I t does this w ith th e sam e scepticism a n d th e same ruth lessn ess w h ich im p elle d th e B u d d h a to sw eep aside his two m illio n gods th a t h e m ig h t a tta in th e o rig in a l e x p erien ce w hich alo n e is co n v in cin g . J93 A n d now w e m u st ask a final q u estio n . Is w h a t I have said of m o d e rn m a n rea lly tru e , o r is it p erh ap s a n illusion? T h e re can b e n o d o u b t w h atev er th a t to m any m illio n s of W estern ers th e facts I have a d d u c e d are w h olly irre le v a n t a n d fo rtu ito u s, a n d re g re tta b le a b e rra tio n s to a large n u m b e r of ed u c a te d p er­ sons. B u t—d id a c u ltiv a te d R o m a n th in k any d ifferen tly w h en h e saw C h ristia n ity sp rea d in g am o n g th e low er classes? T o d a y th e G o d of th e W est is still a liv in g p erso n fo r vast n u m b e rs o f p eople, ju s t as A llah is b e y o n d th e M e d ite rra n e a n , a n d the o n e b eliev er holds th e o th e r a n in fe rio r h eretic, to be p itie d a n d to le ra te d fa ilin g all else. T o m ake m a tters w orse, th e en-

l i g h t e n e d E u r o p e a n is o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t r e l i g i o n a n d s u c h th in g s a r e g o o d e n o u g h fo r th e m a sse s a n d fo r w o m e n , b u t o f lit t le c o n s e q u e n c e c o m p a r e d w ith im m e d ia te e c o n o m ic a n d p o litic a l q u e s tio n s . •94 S o I a m r e f u t e d a ll a lo n g th e lin e , lik e a m a n w h o p r e d ic ts a t h u n d e r s t o r m w h e n t h e r e is n o t a c l o u d i n t h e s k y . P e r h a p s i t is a s t o r m b e l o w t h e h o r i z o n , a n d p e r h a p s i t w i l l n e v e r r e a c h u s . B u t w h a t is s i g n i f i c a n t i n p s y c h i c l i f e a lw a y s l i e s b e l o w t h e h o r i ­ z o n o f c o n s c io u s n e s s , a n d w h e n w e sp e a k o f th e s p ir it u a l p r o b ­ le m o f m o d e r n m a n w e a r e s p e a k in g o f th in g s th a t a r e b a r e ly v i s i b l e —o f t h e m o s t i n t i m a t e a n d f r a g i l e t h i n g s , o f f l o w e r s t h a t o p e n o n l y i n t h e n i g h t . I n d a y l i g h t e v e r y t h i n g is c l e a r a n d t a n g i b l e , b u t t h e n i g h t la s t s a s l o n g a s t h e d a y , a n d w e l i v e i n th e n ig h t - t im e a ls o . T h e r e a r e p e o p le w h o h a v e b a d d r e a m s w h ic h e v e n s p o il t h e ir d a y s fo r th e m . A n d fo r m a n y p e o p le th e d a y ’s l i f e is s u c h a b a d d r e a m t h a t t h e y l o n g f o r t h e n i g h t w h e n th e s p ir it a w a k e s. I b e lie v e th a t th e r e a r e n o w a d a y s a g r e a t m a n y s u c h p e o p le , a n d t h is is w h y I a ls o m a in t a in t h a t t h e s p ir it u a l p r o b le m o f m o d e r n m a n is m u c h a s I h a v e p r e s e n te d it . *95 I m u s t p le a d g u ilt y , h o w e v e r , to th e c h a r g e o f o n e -s id e d n e s s , fo r I h a v e p a sse d o v e r in s ile n c e th e s p ir it o f th e tim e s , a b o u t w h i c h e v e r y o n e h a s s o m u c h t o s a y b e c a u s e i t is s o c l e a r l y a p p a r ­ e n t to u s a ll. I t s h o w s it s e lf in t h e id e a l o f in t e r n a t io n a lis m a n d s u p e r n a tio n a lis m , e m b o d ie d in th e L e a g u e o f N a tio n s a n d th e l ik e ; w e s e e i t a l s o i n s p o r t a n d , s i g n i f i c a n t l y , i n c i n e m a a n d j a z z . T h e s e a r e c h a r a c te r is tic s y m p to m s o f o u r tim e , w h ic h h a s e x ­ te n d e d th e h u m a n is tic id e a l e v e n to th e b o d y . S p o r t p u ts a n e x c e p t i o n a l v a l u a t i o n o n t h e b o d y , a n d t h i s t e n d e n c y is e m ­ p h a s iz e d s t i l l f u r t h e r in m o d e r n d a n c in g . T h e c in e m a , lik e t h e d e te c tiv e sto r y , e n a b le s u s to e x p e r ie n c e w it h o u t d a n g e r to o u r ­ s e lv e s a l l t h e e x c i t e m e n t s , p a s s i o n s , a n d f a n t a s i e s w h i c h h a v e t o b e r e p r e s s e d i n a h u m a n i s t i c a g e . I t is n o t d i f f i c u l t t o s e e h o w th e se s y m p to m s lin k u p w it h o u r p s y c h o lo g ic a l s it u a t io n . T h e fa s c in a tio n o f t h e p s y c h e b r in g s a b o u t a n e w s e lf-a p p r a is a l, a r e a s se ss m e n t o f o u r f u n d a m e n t a l h u m a n n a tu r e . W e c a n h a r d ly b e s u r p r i s e d i f t h i s l e a d s t o a r e d i s c o v e r y o f t h e b o d y a f t e r it s l o n g s u b j e c t i o n t o t h e s p i r i t —w e a r e e v e n t e m p t e d t o s a y t h a t t h e f le s h is g e t t i n g i t s o w n b a c k . W h e n K e y s e r l i n g s a r c a s t i c a l l y s in g le s o u t th e c h a u ffe u r a s th e c u lt u r e -h e r o o f o u r tim e , h e h a s s t r u c k , a s h e o f t e n d o e s , c l o s e t o t h e m a r k . T h e b o d y la y s c l a i m

to e q u a l re c o g n itio n ; it ex e rts th e sam e fascin atio n as th e psyche. Jf we are s till c a u g h t in th e o ld idea of a n a n tith esis b etw een m in d a n d m a tte r, this state of affairs m u st seem like an u n b e a ra b le c o n tra d ic tio n . B u t if w e can reco n cile ourselves to th e m ysterious tr u th th a t th e s p irit is th e life of th e body seen from w ith in , a n d th e b o d y th e o u tw a rd m a n ife sta tio n of th e life o f th e s p irit—th e tw o b ein g really o n e —th e n w e can u n d e rsta n d w hy th e striv in g to tra n scen d th e p re se n t level of consciousness th ro u g h accep tan ce o f th e unconscious m u st give th e b o d y its d u e, a n d w hy re c o g n itio n of th e body c a n n o t to le ra te a p h ilo so p h y th a t d en ies it in th e n a m e of th e sp irit. T h e s e claim s o f physical a n d psychic life, in c o m p a ra b ly stro n g er th a n they w ere in th e past, m ay seem a sign of decadence, b u t they m ay also signify a re ju v e n a tio n , fo r as H o ld e rlin says: W here danger is, Arises salvation also. >96

A n d in d e e d we see, as th e W e ste rn w o rld strikes u p a m o re ra p id te m p o —th e A m eric an te m p o —th e exact o p p o site of q u ie t­ ism a n d w o rld -n eg atin g resig n a tio n . A n u n p re c e d e n te d ten sio n arises b etw een o u tsid e a n d in side, b etw een ob jectiv e a n d s u b ­ jectiv e rea lity . P erh ap s it is a final race b e tw e e n a g in g E u ro p e a n d y o u n g A m erica; p e rh ap s it is a h e a lth ie r o r a last desp erate effort to escape th e d a rk sway of n a tu ra l law, a n d to w rest a yet g re a te r a n d m o re h ero ic v ictory of w ak in g consciousness over th e sleep of th e n a tio n s. T h is is a q u e s tio n o n ly history can answ er.

T H E LOVE PROBLEM OF A S T U D E N T W OM AN IN EU R O PE T H E M EA N IN G OF PSYCHOLOGY FO R M O D ERN MAN T H E STA TE OF PSYCHOTHERAPY TODAY

T H E LOVE PRO B LEM O F A S T U D E N T 1 197

I t is, I assure you, w ith n o lig h t h e a rt th a t I u n d e rta k e th e task of o p en in g y o u r discussion of th e love p ro b le m of a s tu d e n t by read in g a g en eral p a p e r on this subject. Such a discussion is an u n u su al one, a n d presents difficulties if tak en in a s p irit of seriousness a n d w ith a fittin g sense of responsibility. »98 Love is always a p ro b lem , w h atev er o u r age m ay be. In c h ild ­ hood, th e love o f o n e ’s p a re n ts is a p ro b le m , an d for th e old m an th e p ro b le m is w h at h e has m ad e of his love. Love is a force of destiny w hose pow er reaches from heaven to hell. W e m ust, I th in k , u n d e rsta n d love in this way if we are to do any sort of justice to th e p ro b lem s it involves. T h e y are of im m ense scope a n d com plexity, n o t confined to an y p a rtic u la r province b u t covering every aspect of h u m a n life. Love m ay be an ethical, a social, a psychological, a p hilosophical, a n aesthetic, a re li­ gious, a m edical, a legal, o r a physiological pro b lem , to nam e only a few aspects of this m any-sided p h en o m en o n . T h is inva­ sion of love in to all th e collective spheres of life is, how ever, only a m in o r difficulty in com parison w ith the fact th a t love is also an intensely in d iv id u a l p ro b lem . F o r it m eans th a t every general c rite rio n a n d ru le loses its validity, in exactly th e sam e way th a t relig io u s beliefs, alth o u g h constantly codified in the course of history, are always, in essence, an in d iv id u a l e x p e ri­ ence w hich bows to no tra d itio n a l ru le. *99 T h e very w o rd “ love” is itself an obstacle to o u r discussion. W hat, in d eed , has n o t been called “love” ! B eg in n in g w ith the highest m ystery of th e C h ristia n relig io n , we en co u n ter, o n the I [A lectu re to Z urich U niversity students, p robably in Dec., 192a. O riginally p u b ­ lished in E nglish as " T h e Love P roblem o f th e S tu d en t," trans. by C. F. a n d H . G. Baynes from th e u n p u b lish e d G erm an ms., in C ontributions to A nalytical Psychol°gy (London an d N ew York, ig28). F or th e p re se n t trans. th e Baynes version has been consulted.—E d i t o r s .]

n ex t-lo w er stages, th e a m o r D ei of O rig en , th e am o r intellectualis D ei of Spinoza, P la to ’s love of the Idea, a n d th e G ottesm in n e o f th e m ystics. G o e th e ’s w ords in tro d u c e us to th e h u m a n sp h e re of love: Let now the savage instincts sleep A nd all the violence they do; W hen hum an love stirs in the deep T h e love of God is stirring too. zoo

H e re we find th e love o f o n e ’s n e ig h b o u r, in th e C h ristia n sense as w ell as in th e B u d d h ist sense of com passion, a n d the love o f m a n k in d as expressed in social service. N e x t th e re is love of o n e ’s co u n try , a n d th e love fo r id eal in stitu tio n s such as th e C h u rc h . T h e n com es p a re n ta l love, above all m other-love, th en filial love. W h e n we com e to c o n ju g al love we leave th e sphere of th e s p iritu a l a n d e n te r th a t in te rm e d ia te realm b etw een s p irit a n d in stin ct. H e re th e p u re flame of Eros sets fire to sexu­ ality , a n d th e id eal form s o f love—love of p aren ts, of co u n try , of o n e ’s n e ig h b o u r, etc.—are m in g le d w ith th e lu st for p erso n al pow er a n d th e desire to possess a n d to ru le . T h is does n o t m ean th a t all c o n ta ct w ith in stin c t debases love. O n th e co n trary , its b e a u ty a n d tru th a n d stre n g th becom e the m o re p e rfe c t th e m o re in stin c t it can a b so rb in to itself. O n ly if in stin c t p re ­ d o m in ates does th e a n im a l com e to th e surface. C o n ju g a l love can be o f th e k in d of w h ich G o e th e says a t th e e n d of Faust: S pirit by attraction draws Elem ental m atter, Forges bonds no m an can force A nd no angel shatter. D ouble natures single grown, Inw ardly united, By E ternal Love alone Can it be divided. B u t it n e ed n o t necessarily be such a love. I t m ay recall N ietzsch e’s w ords: “T w o an im als have lig h te d o n each o th e r.” T h e love o f th e lo v er is ag ain d ifferen t. E ven th o u g h th e sacra­ m e n t o f m a rria g e b e lacking, a n d th e pledge of a life to g eth er, th is love m ay be tra n sfig u red by th e p o w er of fate o r by its ow n

tragic n atu re. B u t as a ru le in stin c t p redom inates, w ith its d ark glow o r its flickering fires. Even this has n o t b ro u g h t us to th e lim its of love. By “ love” we also m ean th e sexual act on all levels, from officially sanc­ tioned, w edded co h a b ita tio n to th e physiological need w hich drives a m an to p ro stitu te s a n d to th e m ere business they m ake or are forced to m ake of love. W e also speak of “ th e love of boys,” m ean in g hom osexuality, which since classical tim es has lost its g la m o u r as a social an d educative in stitu tio n , a n d now ekes o u t a m iserable, terrorstricken existence as a so-called perversion a n d p u n ish ab le offence, at least w h ere m en are concerned. In A nglo-Saxon countries it seem s o n th e o th e r h a n d th a t fem ale hom osexuality m eans ra th e r m o re th a n Sapphic lyricism , since it som ehow acts as a stim ulus to th e social an d p o litical o rg an izatio n of w om en, just as m ale ho m o sex u ality was an im p o rta n t factor in th e rise of th e G reek polis. Finally, th e w o rd "love” m u st be stretch ed still fu rth e r to cover all sexual perversions. T h e re is incestuous love, a n d a m astu rb ato ry self-love th a t goes by th e nam e of narcissism . T h e w ord “ love” includes every k in d of m o rb id sexual abom ­ in atio n as w ell as every k in d of greed th a t has ever d eg rad ed m an to th e level of a beast o r a m achine. T h u s we find ourselves in th e aw kw ard po sitio n of b eg in ­ n in g a discussion a b o u t a m a tte r o r concept whose o u tlin es are of th e vaguest a n d w hose e x te n t is w ell-nigh illim itab le. A t least for th e purposes of th e p resen t discussion, one w ould like to restrict th e concept of love to th e p ro b lem of how a y o u n g stu ­ d en t sh o u ld com e to term s w ith sex. B u t this ju st c a n n o t be done, because all th e m eanings of th e w ord “ love” w hich I have already m e n tio n e d e n te r actively in to the love p ro b le m of a student. W e can, how ever, agree to discuss the q u e stio n of th e way in w hich th e average so-called n o rm al person behaves u n d e r the conditions I have described. D isregarding the fact th e “n o r­ m al” person does n o t exist, we find, nevertheless, sufficient sim ilarities even am o n g in d iv id u als of th e m ost varied types to w arran t a discussion of th e “average” pro b lem . As always, th e practical so lu tio n of th e p ro b lem depends on tw o factors: th e

dem ands an d capacities of th e in d ividual, and th e environ­ m ental conditions. 2°7 I t is the du ty of a speaker to present a general survey of the question u n d e r discussion. N atu rally this can be done only if, as a doctor, I can give an objective account of things as they are, an d abstain from th a t stale, m oralizing talk which veils the sub­ ject w ith a m ix tu re of bashfulness an d hypocrisy. M oreover, I am n o t here to tell you w hat o u g h t to be done. T h a t m ust be left to those who always know w hat is b etter for o th er people. 208 O u r them e is “T h e Love P roblem of a S tu d en t,” and I assume th at “ love p roblem " m eans the relatio n of the two sexes an d is n o t to be construed as the “sexual p ro b lem ” of a student. T h is provides a useful lim itatio n of o u r them e, for the question of sex w ould need considering only so far as it is a love problem , o r a p roblem of relatio n sh ip . H ence we can exclude all those sexual phenom ena th at have n o th in g to do w ith relationship, such as sexual perversions (w ith th e exception of hom osexu­ ality), m astu rb atio n , an d in terco u rse w ith prostitutes. W e can­ n o t exclude hom osexuality because very often it is a problem of relationship; b u t we can exclude p ro stitu tio n because usually it does n o t involve a relationship, th ough th ere are exceptions w hich prove the ru le. ao9 T h e average so lu tio n of the love problem is, as you know, m arriage. B u t experience shows th a t this statistical tru th does n o t apply to th e student. T h e im m ediate reason for this is th a t a stu d e n t is generally n o t in a position to set u p house. A fu r­ th e r reason is the y o u th fu l age of m ost students, w hich, partly because of th eir unfinished studies, and partly because of th eir need for freedom to move from place to place, does n o t yet per­ m it th e social fixation en tailed by m arriage. O th er factors to be considered are psychological im m aturity, childish clinging to hom e an d family, relatively undeveloped capacity for love and responsibility, lack of experience of life and th e w orld, the typical illusions of youth, an d so on. A reason th a t should n o t be u n d erestim ated is the sagacious reserve of the g irl students. T h e ir first aim is to com plete th e ir studies an d take u p a profes­ sion. T h e y therefore abstain from m arriage, especially from m arriage w ith a student, w ho so long as he rem ains a stu d en t is n o t a desirable m arriage p a rtn e r for the reasons already m en ­ tioned. A nother, very im p o rtan t, reason for the infrequency of 100

stu d en t m arriag es is th e q u estio n of ch ild ren . As a ru le w hen a g irl m arries she w ants a child, w hereas a m an can m anage well en o u g h fo r a tim e w ith o u t c h ild re n . A m arriage w ith o u t child ren has no special a ttra c tio n for a w om an; she prefers to wait. aio I n re ce n t years, it is tru e , s tu d e n t m arriages have becom e m ore fre q u en t. T h is is d u e p artly to th e psychological changes in o u r m o d e rn o u tlo o k , a n d p artly to th e spread of co n tracep ­ tive m easures. T h e psychological changes th a t have produced, am ong o th e r things, th e p h e n o m e n o n of the stu d e n t m arriag e are p ro b ab ly th e re su lt of th e sp iritu a l upheavals of th e last few decades, th e to ta l significance of w hich w e are as yet u n a b le to grasp. A ll we can say is th at, as a consequence of th e general dissem ination of scientific know ledge an d a m ore scientific way of th in k in g , a change in th e very co n cep tio n of th e love p ro b ­ lem has com e a b o u t. Scientific o b jectiv ity has effected a ra p ­ p ro ch em en t betw een th e sacrosanct idea of m an as a su p e rio r being a n d m a n as a n a tu ra l being, a n d m ade it possible for H o m o sapiens to take his place as p a rt of th e n a tu ra l o rder. T h e change has a n em o tio n al as w ell as a n in te lle c tu a l aspect. Such a view w orks d ire ctly on th e feelings of th e in d iv id u al. H e feels released from th e confines of a m etaphysical system a n d from those m o ral categories w hich characterized t h e ‘m edieval outlook o n th e w orld. T h e taboos erected o n m a n ’s exclusion from n a tu re n o lo n g er prevail, a n d th e m o ral ju d g m en ts w hich in th e last analysis always have th e ir roots in th e relig io u s m eta­ physic of th e age have lost th e ir force. W ith in th e tra d itio n a l m oral system everyone knows perfectly why m arriag e is “rig h t” and why any o th e r fo rm of love is to be a b h o rred . B u t o u tsid e the system, o n th e p lay g ro u n d a n d b attlefield of n a tu re , w here m an feels h im self to be th e m ost g ifted m em b er of th e g reat fam ily of anim als, h e m u st o rie n t him self anew . T h e loss of th e old stan d ard s a n d values am o u n ts, a t first, to m oral chaos. A ll the h ith e rto accepted form s are d o u b ted , people begin to dis­ cuss things th a t have long sh eltered b e h in d a m o ral p reju d ice. T h e y boldly in vestigate th e actu al facts a n d feel an irresistib le need to take stock of experience, to know a n d to u n d erstan d . T h e eyes of science are fearless a n d clear; they do n o t flinch from gazing in to m o ral darknesses an d d irty corners. T h e m an of today can n o lo n g er rest c o n te n t w ith a tra d itio n a l judg101

m ent; he m ust know why. T h is search leads to the creation of new standards of value. *** One of these is an evaluation of love in terms of hygiene. T hrough a franker and m ore objective discussion of sex a knowledge of the immense dangers of venereal disease has be­ come m uch more widespread. T h e obligation to keep oneself healthy has superseded the guilty fears of the old morality. But this process of moral sanitation has no t yet progressed to the point where public conscience w ould allow the same civic measures to be taken for dealing w ith venereal diseases as with other infectious diseases. Venereal diseases are still considered “indecent,” unlike smallpox and cholera, which are morally acceptable in the draw ing room. No doubt these fine distinc­ tions will raise a smile in a m ore enlightened age. a1* T h e widespread discussion of the sexual question has brought the extraordinary im portance of sexuality in all its psychic ramifications to the forefront of our social conscious­ ness. A m ajor contribution was made during the last twentyfive years by the much-decried psychoanalytic movement. T oday it is no longer possible to brush aside the trem endous psy­ chological im portance of sex w ith a bad joke or a display of m oral indignation. People are beginning to see the sexual question in the context of the great hum an problem s and to discuss it w ith the seriousness it deserves. T h e natural result of this is that much that was formerly held to be beyond dispute is now open to doubt. T h ere is, for instance, a doubt as to w hether the officially sanctioned form of sexuality is the only one that is m orally possible, and w hether all other forms are to be condem ned out of hand. T h e argum ents for and against are gradually losing their m oral acerbity, practical considera­ tions force themselves into the discussion, and finally we are beginning to discover that legitimized sex is not eo ipso the equivalent of m oral superiority. 21S In addition to this, the m arriage problem with its usually sombre background has become a them e for rom antic litera­ ture. W hereas the rom ance of the old style concluded w ith a happy betrothal or a wedding, the m odern novel often begins after the marriage. In these novels, which get into everybody’s hands, the most intim ate problems are often treated w ith a lack of reticence that is positively painful. Of the veritable flood of 102

m ore o r less u n d isg u ised p o rn o g ra p h ic w ritings we need h ard ly speak. A p o p u la r scientific book, F o rel’s T h e S exual Q uestion, n ot only h a d an en o rm o u s sale b u t fo u n d a good m any im ita ­ tors. In scientific lite ra tu re , co m p ilations have been p ro d u ced w hich b o th in scope a n d in th e d u b io u s n a tu re of th e ir co n ten ts exceed an y th in g fo u n d in K rafft-E bing’s Psychopathia Sexualis, in a way th a t w o u ld have been inconceivable th irty o r forty years ago. *14 T h ese w id esp read a n d w idely know n p h en o m en a are a sign of the tim es. T h e y m ake it possible for young people today to grasp the fu ll im p o rtan ce of the p ro b le m of sex m uch earlier th an they co u ld have a t any tim e d u rin g th e last tw o decades. T h e re are som e w ho m a in ta in th a t this early p reo ccu p atio n w ith sex is u n h ea lth y , a sign of u rb a n d eg en eratio n . I rem em ­ ber re ad in g a n a rtic le fifteen years ago in O stw ald’s A n n a le n der N a tu r p h ilo so p h ie , w hich said, q u ite literally : “ P rim itiv e people like th e Eskim os, Swiss, etc., have no sexual p ro b le m .” I t scarcely needs m u c h reflection to see why p rim itiv es have no sexual p ro b le m ; bey o n d th e concerns of the stom ach they have n o o th e r p ro b le m s to w orry ab o u t. P roblem s are th e p re ­ rogative o f civilized m an. H e re in S w itzerland we have n o g reat cities an d yet such pro b lem s exist. I do n o t th in k th a t discussion of the sexual q u e stio n is u n h e a lth y o r in th e least degenerate; I see it ra th e r as a sym ptom o f th e g reat psychological rev o lu ­ tio n of o u r tim e a n d th e changes it has b ro u g h t ab o u t. It seems to m e th a t th e m o re seriously a n d th o ro u g h ly we discuss this question, w hich is of such v ital im p o rtan ce for m a n ’s h ealth a n d happiness, th e b e tte r it w ill b e for all of us. *l5 I t is n o d o u b t th e serious in te re st show n in this q u estio n th at has led to th e h ith e rto u n k n o w n p h en o m en o n of stu d e n t m arriages. Such a very rec en t p h en o m en o n is difficult to ju d g e for lack of sufficient data. In fo rm e r tim es th e re w ere early m arriages in ab u n d an c e, also m arriages th a t m ust have seem ed socially very u n stab le. In itself, th erefore, th e stu d e n t m arriag e is perfectly perm issible. T h e q u estio n of ch ild re n , how ever, is a n o th e r m a tter. If b o th p a rtn e rs are studying, c h ild re n m ust obviously b e ru le d o u t. B u t a m arriag e th a t rem ains artificially childless is always ra th e r p ro b le m atical. C h ild re n are th e cem ent th a t holds it to g eth er as n o th in g else could. A n d it is the p a re n ts’ co n c e n tra tio n o n th e c h ild re n w hich in in n u m era103

ble instances keeps alive the feeling of com panionship so essen­ tial for the stability of a m arriage. W hen there are no children the interest of each partner is directed to the other, which in itself m ight be a good thing. In practice, unfortunately, this m utual preoccupation is not always of an amiable kind. Each blames the other for the dissatisfaction felt by both. In these circumstances it is probably better for the wife to be studying, otherwise she is left w ithout an object; for there are many women who cannot endure m arriage w ithout children and be­ come unendurable themselves. If she is studying, she at least has a life outside her m arriage that is sufficiently satisfying. A woman who is very set on children, and for whom children are m ore im portant than a husband, should certainly think twice before em barking on a student marriage. She should also realize that the urge to m aternity often appears in im perative form only later, that is, after she is m arried. a»6 As to w hether student marriages are prem ature, we m ust take note of a fact that applies to all early marriages, namely, that a girl of twenty is usually older than a m an of twenty-five, as far as m aturity of judgm ent is concerned. W ith many m en of twenty-five the period of psychological puberty is not yet over. Puberty is a period of illusion and only partial responsibility. T h e psychological difference is due to the fact that a boy, up to the time of sexual m aturity, is as a rule quite childish, whereas a girl develops m uch earlier than he does the psychological subtleties that go hand in hand with adolescence. Into this childishness sexuality often breaks with brutal force, while, despite the onset of puberty, it often goes on slum bering in a girl until the passion of love awakens it. T h ere are a surprising num ber of women whose real sexuality, even though they are m arried, remains virginal for years; they become conscious of it only when they fall in love with another man. T h a t is the reason why very many women have no understanding at all of masculine sexuality—they are completely unconscious of their own. W ith m en it is different. Sexuality bursts on them like a tempest, filling them with bru te desires and needs, and there is scarcely one of them who escapes the painful problem of mas­ turbation. But a girl can m asturbate for years w ithout knowing what she is doing. s ,7 T h e onrush of sexuality in a boy brings about a powerful 104

change in his psychology. H e now has th e sexuality of a grow n m an w ith th e soul of a ch ild . O fte n the flood of obscene fan ­ tasies an d sm u tty talk w ith schoolfellow s pours like a to rre n t of dirty w ater o v er all his d elicate a n d childish feelings, som e­ tim es sm o th e rin g th e m for ever. U n ex p ected m oral conflicts arise, tem p ta tio n s o f every d escrip tio n lie in w ait for h im a n d weave them selves in to his fantasies. T h e psychic assim ilation of the sexual co m p lex causes h im th e greatest difficulties even though he m ay n o t be conscious of its existence. T h e onset of p u b erty also b rin g s a b o u t co n sid erable changes in his m e ta b ­ olism, as can be seen fro m th e p im ples a n d acne th a t so o ften afflict adolescents. T h e psyche is d istu rb e d in a sim ilar m a n n e r a n d th ro w n off its balance. A t this age th e y oung m an is fu ll of illusions, w hich a re always a sign of psychic d ise q u ilib riu m . T h e y m ake stab ility a n d m a tu rity of ju d g m e n t im possible. H is tastes, his interests, his plans a lte r fitfully. H e can suddenly fall head over heels in love w ith a g irl, a n d a fo rtn ig h t la te r he can­ n o t conceive how a n y th in g o f th e sort could have h ap p e n e d to him . H e is so rid d le d w ith illusions th a t he actually needs these m istakes to m ake h im conscious o f his ow n taste a n d in d iv id u a l ju d g m en t. H e is still e x p e rim e n tin g w ith life, a n d m ust ex p eri­ m en t w ith it in o rd e r to learn how to ju d g e things correctly. H ence th e re are very few m en w ho have n o t h ad sexual e x p e ri­ ence of some k in d before they are m arried . D u rin g p u b e rty it is m ostly hom osexual experiences, a n d these are m u ch m o re com ­ m on th a n is g enerally ad m itte d . H etero sex u al experiences com e later, n o t always of a very b e a u tifu l k ind. F o r th e less th e sexual com plex is assim ilated to th e w hole of th e personality, th e m ore au to n o m o u s a n d in stin ctiv e it w ill be. Sexuality is th e n p u rely an im al a n d recognizes no psychological d istin ctio n s. T h e m ost in ferio r w om an w ill do; it is en o u g h if she has th e typical sec­ ondary sexual characteristics. A false step of this k in d does n o t e n title us to draw conclusions a b o u t a m a n ’s character, as th e act can easily occur a t a tim e w hen the sexual com plex is still split off from th e psyche’s influence. N evertheless, too m any experiences of this n a tu re have a b ad effect o n th e fo rm atio n of the p ersonality, as by force of h a b it they fix sexuality on too low a level a n d m ake it u n accep tab le to m o ral ju d g m e n t. T h e resu lt is th a t th o u g h th e m an in q u estio n is o u tw ard ly a re ­ spectable citizen, inw ardly he is p rey to sexual fantasies of th e 105

lowest kind, o r else he represses th em an d on some festive occa­ sion they com e leaping to th e surface in th eir p rim itiv e form , m uch to th e astonishm ent of his unsuspecting wife—assum ing, of course, th at she notices w hat is going on. A freq u en t accom ­ p an im en t is p rem atu re coldness tow ards the wife. W om en are often frigid from th e first day of m arriage because th e ir sensa­ tio n fun ctio n does n o t respond to this k in d of sexuality in th eir husbands. T h e weakness of a m an ’s ju d g m en t at the tim e of psychological p u b erty should p ro m p t him to reflect very deeply o n th e p re m atu re choice of a wife. 818 L et us now tu rn to o th er form s of relationship betw een the sexes th a t are custom ary d u rin g the stu d en t period. T h e re are, as you know, characteristic liaisons betw een students, chiefly in the great universities of o th e r countries. T h ese relationships are som etim es fairly stable an d m ay even have a psychological value, as they do n o t consist en tirely of sexuality b u t also, in p art, of love. Occasionally the liaison is co n tin u ed in to m ar­ riage. T h e relatio n sh ip stands, therefore, considerably h ig h er th an p ro stitu tio n . B u t as a ru le it is lim ited to those students w ho were careful in the choice of th e ir parents. I t is usually a qu estio n of m oney, for m ost of the girls are d ep en d en t on th eir lovers for financial help, though they could n o t be said to sell th e ir love for m oney. Very often the relationship is a b eau tifu l episode in th e g irl’s life, otherw ise poor an d em pty, w hile for the m an it m ay be his first in tim ate acquaintance w ith a w om an, a n d in later life a m em ory on w hich he looks back w ith em otion. O ften, again, th ere is n o th in g valuable in these affairs, partly ow ing to the m a n ’s crude sensuality, thoughtlessness, and lack of feeling, a n d partly ow ing to the frivolity a n d fickleness of th e girl. 219 O ver all these relationships hangs the D am oclean sword of th e ir transitoriness, w hich prevents the form ation of real values. T h e y are passing episodes, experim ents of very lim ited validity. T h e ir in ju rio u s effect on th e personality is due to the fact th a t the m an gets th e g irl too easily, so th at the value of the Ioveobject is depreciated. It is co nvenient for h im to dispose of his sexual problem in such a sim ple a n d irresponsible way. H e be­ comes spoilt. B u t even m ore, th e fact th a t he is sexually satisfied robs h im of a driving-force w hich n o young m an can do w ith ­ out. H e becomes blas£ an d can afford to wait. M eanw hile he 106

220

can calm ly rev iew th e m assed fe m in in ity passing b e fo re h im u n til th e r ig h t p a rty tu rn s u p . T h e n th e w e d d in g com es a lo n g a n d th e la te st d a te is th ro w n over. T h i s p ro c e d u re a d d s little of a d v a n ta g e to h is c h a ra c te r. T h e low level o f re la tio n s h ip tends to k e e p se x u a lity o n a c o rre sp o n d in g ly low level o f d e ­ v e lo p m e n t, a n d th is c a n easily le a d to d ifficu lties in m a rria g e . O r if h is se x u a l fan tasies a re rep ressed , th e re s u lt is o n ly to o likely to b e a n e u ro tic o r, w orse still, a m o ra l zealot. H o m o se x u a l re la tio n s b e tw e e n s tu d e n ts o f e ith e r sex a re by n o m ean s u n c o m m o n . So fa r as I can ju d g e o f this p h e n o m e n o n , I w o u ld say th a t th e se re la tio n s h ip s a re less c o m m o n w ith us, a n d o n th e c o n tin e n t g e n e ra lly , th a n in c e rta in o th e r c o u n trie s w h ere boy a n d g irl college s tu d e n ts liv e in s tric t seg reg a tio n . I am s p e a k in g h e re n o t o f p a th o lo g ic a l h o m o se x u a ls w h o are in c ap a b le o f re a l frie n d s h ip a n d m e e t w ith little sy m p ath y a m o n g n o rm a l in d iv id u a ls , b u t o f m o re o r less n o rm a l y o u n g ­ sters w h o e n jo y su ch a ra p tu ro u s frie n d s h ip th a t th e y also e x ­ press th e ir feelin g s in se x u a l fo rm . W ith th e m it is n o t ju s t a m a tte r o f m u tu a l m a s tu rb a tio n , w h ic h in a ll school a n d college life is th e o rd e r o f th e day a m o n g th e y o u n g e r age g ro u p s, b u t of a h ig h e r a n d m o re s p iritu a l fo rm w h ic h deserves th e n a m e “frie n d s h ip ” in th e classical sense o f th e w o rd . W h e n su ch a frie n d s h ip exists b e tw e e n a n o ld e r m a n a n d a y o u n g e r its e d u ­ cative sig n ifican ce is u n d e n ia b le . A slig h tly h o m o se x u a l te a c h e r, fo r e x am p le, o fte n ow es h is b r illia n t e d u c a tio n a l g ifts to h is h o m o sex u al d isp o sitio n . T h e h o m o se x u a l r e la tio n b e tw e e n a n o ld e r a n d a y o u n g e r m a n c an th u s be o f a d v a n ta g e to b o th sides a n d have a la stin g v a lu e . A n in d is p e n sa b le c o n d itio n fo r th e v alue o f such a r e la tio n is th e steadfastness o f th e frie n d s h ip a n d th e ir lo y alty to it. B u t o n ly to o o fte n th is c o n d itio n is lack in g . T h e m o re h o m o se x u a l a m a n is, th e m o re p ro n e h e is to d is­ loyalty a n d to th e se d u c tio n o f boys. E v e n w h e n lo y alty a n d tru e frie n d s h ip p re v a il th e re su lts m ay b e u n d e s ira b le fo r th e d e v e lo p m e n t of p e rso n a lity . A frie n d s h ip o f th is k in d n a tu ra lly involves a special c u lt o f fe e lin g , o f th e fe m in in e e le m e n t in a m an. H e becom es g u sh in g , s o u lfu l, a esth e tic , over-sensitive, etc. —in a w o rd , effem in ate, a n d th is w o m a n ish b e h a v io u r is d e tr i­ m e n ta l to his c h a ra c te r. S im ila r a d v an ta g e s a n d d isad v a n ta g es can b e p o in te d o u t in frie n d sh ip s b e tw e e n w o m en , o n ly h e re th e d ifferen c e in age 107

a n d th e e d u c a tiv e fa c to r a r e n o t so im p o r ta n t. T h e m a in v a lu e lies in th e e x c h a n g e o f te n d e r fe e lin g s o n th e o n e h a n d a n d o f in tim a te th o u g h ts o n th e o th e r. G e n e ra lly th e y a re h ig h -s p ir­ ite d , in te lle c tu a l, a n d r a th e r m a s c u lin e w o m e n w h o a r e seek ­ in g to m a in ta in th e i r s u p e r io r ity a n d to d e fe n d th e m se lv e s a g a in s t m e n . T h e i r a t tit u d e to m e n is th e re f o r e o n e o f d is c o n ­ c e r tin g self-assu ran ce, w ith a tra c e o f d efia n ce. Its effect o n th e ir c h a r a c te r is to re in f o r c e th e ir m a s c u lin e tr a its a n d to d e s tro y th e ir f e m in in e c h a rm . O f te n a m a n d isco v ers th e ir h o m o s e x u ­ a lity o n ly w h e n h e n o tic e s th a t th e se w o m e n le a v e h im sto n ecold. 22a N o rm a lly , th e p ra c tic e o f h o m o s e x u a lity is n o t p r e ju d ic ia l to la te r h e te ro s e x u a l a c tiv ity . I n d e e d , th e tw o c a n e v e n e x ist sid e b y side. I k n o w a v e ry in te llig e n t w o m a n w h o s p e n t h e r w h o le life as a h o m o s e x u a l a n d th e n a t fifty e n te r e d in to a n o r ­ m a l r e la tio n s h ip w ith a m a n . «3 A m o n g th e se x u a l r e la tio n s o f th e s tu d e n t p e r io d w e m u s t m e n tio n y e t a n o th e r , w h ic h is q u it e n o r m a l e v e n if r a th e r p e c u lia r. T h i s is th e a tta c h m e n t o f a y o u n g m a n to a n o ld e r w o m a n , p o ssib ly m a r r ie d o r a t a n y r a te w id o w ed . Y o u w ill p e r ­ h a p s r e m e m b e r J e a n J a c q u e s R o u s s e a u a n d h is c o n n e c tio n w ith M m e d e W a re n s ; th is is th e k in d o f r e la tio n s h ip I h a v e in m in d . T h e m a n is u s u a lly r a t h e r sh y , u n s u r e o f h im se lf, in w a rd ly a fra id , s o m e tim e s in f a n tile . H e n a tu r a lly seeks a m o th e r , p e r ­ h a p s b e c a u se h e h as h a d to o m u c h o r to o li ttl e lo v e in h is o w n fa m ily . M a n y w o m e n lik e n o th i n g b e t te r th a n a m a n w h o is r a t h e r h elp less, e sp ecially w h e n th e y a r e c o n s id e ra b ly o ld e r th a n h e is; th e y d o n o t lo v e a m a n ’s s tre n g th , h is v irtu e s a n d h is m e rits , b u t h is w eak n esses. T h e y fin d h is in fa n tilis m s c h a r m ­ in g . I f h e s ta m m e rs a little , h e is e n c h a n tin g ; o r p e rh a p s h e h as a lim p , a n d th is ex c ite s m a te r n a l c o m p a ssio n a n d a li ttl e m o re b esid es. As a r u le th e w o m a n sed u ces h im , a n d h e w illin g ly s u b ­ m its to h e r m o th e r in g . 2*4 N o t alw ays, h o w e v e r, d o es a tim id y o u th r e m a in h a lf a c h ild . I t m a y b e th a t th is s u r f e it o f m a te r n a l s o lic itu d e w as ju s t w h a t w as n e e d e d to b r in g h is u n d e v e lo p e d m a s c u lin ity to th e su rfa c e . I n th is w ay th e w o m a n e d u c a te s h is fe e lin g a n d b rin g s it to fu ll co n scio u sn ess. H e le a rn s to u n d e r s ta n d a w o m a n w h o h as e x ­ p e rie n c e o f life a n d th e w o rld , is s u re o f h e rse lf, a n d th u s h e h as a r a r e o p p o r tu n ity fo r a g lim p s e b e h in d th e scenes. B u t h e 108

225

226

can take a d v a n ta g e o f it o n ly if he q u ic k ly o u tg ro w s th is re la tio n ­ ship, fo r s h o u ld h e g e t stu ck in it h e r m o th e rin g w o u ld r u in him . M a te rn a l te n d e rn e ss is th e m ost p e rn ic io u s p o iso n fo r a n y ­ one w ho has to e q u ip h im se lf for th e h a rd a n d p itiless stru g g le of life. I f h e c a n n o t le t go o f h e r a p ro n -strin g s h e w ill b eco m e a spineless p a ra s ite —fo r m o st o f th ese w o m e n h a v e m o n e y —a n d sink to th e level o f a lap-dog o r a p e t cat. W e m u s t n o w discuss those fo rm s o f re la tio n s h ip w h ic h offer no s o lu tio n o f th e sex u a l q u e s tio n fo r th e re a so n th a t th ey a re asexual o r “ p la to n ic .” If th e re w ere a n y re lia b le statistics o n this su b ject, I b e lie v e th ey w o u ld show th a t in S w itz e rla n d th e m a jo rity o f s tu d e n ts p re fe r a p la to n ic re la tio n s h ip . N a tu ra lly , this raises th e q u e s tio n o f sex u a l a b stin e n c e . O n e o f t e n h ears th a t a b s ta in in g fro m sex u a l in te rc o u se is in ju r io u s to h e a lth . T h is view is in c o rre c t, a t least fo r p e o p le o f th e s tu d e n t age. A b stin en c e is in ju r io u s to h e a lth o n ly w h e n a m a n has re a c h e d th e age w h e n h e c o u ld w in a w o m a n fo r h im self, a n d s h o u ld d o so a c c o rd in g to his in d iv id u a l in c lin a tio n s . T h e e x tra o rd in a ry in te n sific atio n o f th e sex u a l n e e d th a t is so o fte n fe lt a t th is tim e has th e b io lo g ic a l a im o f fo rc ib ly e lim in a tin g th e m a n ’s scruples, m isgivings, d o u b ts , a n d h e sita tio n s. T h i s is very n eces­ sary, becau se th e very id e a o f m a rria g e , w ith all its d o u b tf u l p o ssibilities, o fte n m ak es a m a n p an ick y . I t is o n ly to b e ex ­ pected, th e re fo re , th a t n a tu r e w ill p u sh h im o v e r th e o b stacle. A b ste n tio n fro m se x u a l in te rc o u rs e m ay c e rta in ly h a v e in j u r i ­ ous effects u n d e r th ese c o n d itio n s , b u t n o t w h e n th e re is n o u rg e n t physical o r psychological n e e d fo r it. T h is b rin g s us to th e v ery s im ila r q u e s tio n c o n c e rn in g th e in ju rio u s effects o f m a s tu rb a tio n . W h e n fo r p h y sical o r psy­ ch ological reaso n s n o rm a l in te rc o u se is im p o ssib le, m a s tu rb a ­ tio n as a safety-valve has n o ill effects. Y o u n g p e o p le w h o co m e to th e d o c to r s u ffe rin g fro m th e h a rm fu l effects o f m a s tu rb a tio n are n o t b y a n y m e an s excessive m a s tu rb a tio n is ts —th ese u su a lly have n o n e e d o f a d o c to r because th e y a re n o t in a n y sense ill —ra th e r, th e ir m a s tu rb a tio n has h a rm fu l effects b ecau se it show s psychic c o m p lic a tio n s a n d is a tte n d e d b y pangs o f co n scien ce o r by a r io t o f sex u a l fantasies. T h e la tte r a re p a rtic u la rly co m ­ m o n a m o n g w o m e n . M a s tu rb a tio n w ith psychic c o m p lic a tio n s is h a rm fu l, b u t n o t th e o rd in a ry , u n c o m p lic a te d k in d . If, h o w ­ ever, i t is c o n tin u e d u p to th e age w h e n n o rm a l in te rc o u rs e 109

becomes physically, psychologically, and socially possible, an d is indulged in m erely in o rd e r to avoid the necessary tasks of life, then it is harm ful. 227 P latonic relationships are very im p o rtan t d u rin g the stu d en t period. T h e form they m ost com m only take is flirting. F lirtin g is the expression of an ex p erim en tal a ttitu d e w hich is altogether ap p ro p riate at this age. It is a v o luntary activity w hich, by tacit agreem ent, puts n e ith e r side u n d e r an obligation. T h is is an advantage and at th e same tim e a disadvantage. T h e ex p eri­ m en tal a ttitu d e enables b o th parties to get to know each o th er w ith o u t any im m ediately u n d esirable results. B oth exercise th e ir ju d g m en t and th eir skill in self-expression, adap tatio n , and defence. A n enorm ous variety of experiences w hich are uncom m only valuable in later life can be picked u p from flirt­ ing. O n the o th er hand, the absence of any obligation can easily lead to o n e’s becom ing an h a b itu a l flirt, shallow, frivolous, and heartless. T h e m an tu rn s in to a draw ing-room hero and profes­ sional heart-breaker, never d ream in g w hat a b o rin g figure he cuts; th e girl a coquette, and a serious m an instinctively feels th a t she is n o t to be taken seriously. 228 A p h en o m en o n th a t is as ra re as flirting is com m on is the conscious cu ltiv atio n of a serious love. W e m ig h t call this sim ply the ideal, w ith o u t, however, id en tifying it w ith tra d itio n al rom anticism . F o r th e developm ent of personality, th ere can be n o d o u b t th a t th e tim ely aw akening and conscious cultivation of deeply serious an d responsible feelings are of th e utm ost value. A relatio n sh ip of this k in d can be the m ost effective shield against th e tem ptations th a t beset a young m an, as well as b ein g a pow erful incentive to h a rd work, loyalty, an d re ­ liability. H ow ever, th ere is n o v alue so g reat th a t it does n o t have its unfavourable side. A relatio n sh ip th at is too ideal easily becomes exclusive. T h ro u g h his love the young m an is too m uch cu t off from th e acqu ain tan ce of o th er w om en, and the girl does n o t learn th e a rt of erotic conquest because she has got h er m an already. W o m an ’s in stin ct for possession is a d an ­ gerous thing, an d it may easily h ap p en th at the m an will regret all th e experiences he never had w ith w om en before m arriage an d w ill m ake u p for them afterw ards. 229 H ence it m u st n o t be concluded th at every relatio n sh ip of this k in d is ideal. T h e re are cases w here the exact opposite is 110

tru e —w h e n , fo r in sta n ce , a m a n o r g irl tra ils r o u n d w ith a school s w e e th e a rt fo r n o in te llig ib le re a so n , fro m m e re fo rce of h a b it. W h e th e r fro m in e rtia , o r lack o f s p irit, o r h elp lessn ess th ey sim p ly c a n n o t g e t r id of each o th e r. P e rh a p s th e p a re n ts on b o th sides fin d th e m a tc h s u ita b le , a n d th e affair, b e g u n in a m o m e n t o f th o u g h tlessn ess a n d p ro lo n g e d by h a b it, is pas­ sively a c c e p te d as a fait acco mp li. H e re th e d isad v a n ta g es p ile u p w ith o u t a sin g le a d v a n ta g e . F o r th e d e v e lo p m e n t of p e rs o n ­ ality, acq u ie sce n c e a n d passivity a re h a rm fu l b ecau se th e y a re a n o b stacle to v a lu a b le e x p e rie n c e a n d to th e ex ercise o f o n e ’s specific gifts a n d v irtu e s. M o ra l q u a litie s a re w o n o n ly in fre e ­ d o m a n d p ro v e th e ir w o rth o n ly in m o ra lly d a n g e ro u s s itu a ­ tions. T h e th ie f w h o re fra in s fro m ste a lin g m e re ly b ecau se h e is in p ris o n is n o t a m o ra l p e rso n a lity . T h o u g h th e p a re n ts m ay gaze b e n ig n ly o n th is to u c h in g m a rria g e a n d a d d th e ir c h il­ d re n ’s re s p e c ta b ility to th e ta le of th e ir o w n v irtu e s, it is all a sham a n d a d e lu sio n , la c k in g re a l s tre n g th , a n d sap p e d by m o ra l in e rtia . a3° A fte r th is b r ie f su rv e y o f th e p ro b le m s as w e m e e t th e m in a c tu a l life, I w ill, in c o n c lu sio n , tu r n to th e la n d o f h e a r t’s desire a n d u to p ia n p o ssib ilitie s. 2S1 N ow adays w e c a n h a rd ly discuss th e love p ro b le m w ith o u t sp eak in g of th e u to p ia o f free love, in c lu d in g tria l m a rria g e . I re g a rd th is id e a as a w ish fu l fan tasy a n d a n a tte m p t to m ak e lig h t o f a p ro b le m w h ic h in a c tu a l life is in v a ria b ly very diffi­ c u lt. I t is n o m o re p o ssib le to m a k e life easy th a n i t is to g ro w a h e rb o f im m o rta lity . T h e force o f g ra v ity c a n b e o v e rc o m e o n ly by th e re q u is ite a p p lic a tio n o f e n erg y . S im ilarly , th e s o lu tio n of th e love p ro b le m ch allen g e s a ll o u r reso u rces. A n y th in g else w o u ld b e useless p a tc h w o rk . F re e love w o u ld b e c o n c e iv a b le o n ly if ev ery o n e w e re c a p a b le o f th e h ig h e st m o ra l a c h ie v e ­ m e n t. T h e id e a o f fre e love was n o t in v e n te d w ith th is a im in view , b u t m e re ly to m a k e s o m e th in g d ifficu lt a p p e a r easy. L ove re q u ire s d e p th a n d lo y alty of fe e lin g ; w ith o u t th e m i t is n o t love b u t m e re cap rice . T r u e love w ill alw ays c o m m it itse lf a n d engage in la stin g ties; it n eed s fre e d o m o n ly to effect its ch o ice, n o t fo r its a c c o m p lish m e n t. E v ery tr u e a n d d e e p love is a sacri­ fice. T h e lo v e r sacrifices a ll o th e r p o ssib ilitie s, o r r a th e r , th e illu s io n th a t su ch p o ssib ilitie s exist. If th is sacrifice is n o t m a d e, his illu sio n s p re v e n t th e g ro w th o f a n y d e e p a n d re sp o n sib le 111

sS8

*33

*34

*35

feeling, so th at the very possibility of experiencing real love is d en ied him . Love has m ore th an one th in g in com m on w ith religious faith. I t dem ands u n co n d itio n al tru st an d expects absolute su r­ ren d er. Ju st as nobody b u t the believer who surrenders him self w holly to G od can partake of divine grace, so love reveals its highest m ysteries an d its w onder only to those w ho are capable of u n q u alified devotion an d loyalty of feeling. A nd because this is so difficult, few m ortals can boast of such an achievem ent. B ut, precisely because th e tru e st an d m ost devoted love is also th e m ost b eau tifu l, let no m an seek to m ake it easy. H e is a sorry k n ig h t w ho shrinks from the difficulty of loving his lady. Love is like G od: both give them selves only to th e ir bravest knights. I w ould offer the same criticism of trial m arriages. T h e very fact th a t a m an enters in to a m arriage on trial m eans th a t he is m ak in g a reservation; he w ants to be sure of n o t b u rn in g his fingers, to risk noth in g . B u t th a t is the m ost effective way of forestalling any real experience. You do n o t experience the terrors of th e P olar ice by p eru sin g a travel-book, or clim b the H im alayas in a cinem a. Love is n o t cheap—let us therefore bew are of cheapening itl A ll o u r bad qualities, o u r egotism , o u r cowardice, o u r w orldly wisdom, o u r cu p id ity —all these w ould persuade us n o t to take love seriously. B u t love w ill rew ard us only w hen we do. I m ust even regard it as a m isfo rtu n e th a t nowadays the sexual ques­ tio n is spoken of as som ething d istin ct from love. T h e two ques­ tions should n o t be separated, for w hen th ere is a sexual p ro b ­ lem it can be solved only by love. A ny o th e r solution w ould be a h arm fu l substitu te. Sexuality dished o u t as sexuality is b r u t­ ish; b u t sexuality as an expression of love is hallow ed. T h e re ­ fore, never ask w hat a m an does, b u t how he does it. If he does it from love o r in th e sp irit of love, th en he serves a god; an d w hatever he m ay do is n o t ours to judge, for it is ennobled. I tru st th a t these rem arks w ill have m ade it clear to you th a t I pass no sort of m oral ju d g m e n t on sexuality as a n a tu ra l phenom enon, b u t p refer to m ake its m oral evaluation d ep en d ­ e n t on th e way it is expressed.

W O M A N IN E U R O P E 1 You call yourself free? Your dom i­ n a n t th o u g h t I w ould hear, and n o t th a t you have escaped from a yoke. A re you one of those who had the rig h t to escape from a yoke? T h e re are some w ho threw away th eir last value w hen they threw away th eir servitude. T h u s Spake Zarathiistra * 36

T o w rite a b o u t w o m a n in E u ro p e to d ay is su ch a h a za rd o u s u n d e rta k in g th a t I w o u ld scarcely h a v e v e n tu re d to d o so w ith ­ o u t a p re ssin g in v ita tio n . H a v e w e a n y th in g o£ fu n d a m e n ta l im p o rta n c e to say a b o u t E u ro p e? Is a n y o n e sufficiently d e ­ tached? A re w e n o t a ll in v o lv e d in som e p ro g ra m m e o r e x p e r i­ m e n t, o r c a u g h t in som e c ritic a l re tro s p e c t th a t c lo u d s o u r ju d g ­ m ent? A n d in re g a rd to w o m a n , c a n n o t th e sam e q u e stio n s b e asked? M o re o v er, w h a t c a n a m a n say a b o u t w o m a n , h is o w n op posite? I m e a n of c o u rse s o m e th in g sen sib le, th a t is o u ts id e th e sex u a l p ro g ra m m e , free o f re s e n tm e n t, illu s io n , a n d th e o ry . W h e re is th e m a n to b e fo u n d c a p a b le o f su ch su p e rio rity ? W o m a n alw ays stan d s ju s t w h e re th e m a n ’s sh ad o w falls, so th a t he is o n ly to o lia b le to c o n fu se th e tw o. T h e n , w h e n h e tries to r e p a ir th is m is u n d e rs ta n d in g , h e o v erv alu es h e r a n d I [O rig in a lly p u b lis h e d as "D ie F ra u in E u ro p a ,” E u ro p a isc h e R e v u e (B erlin ), I I I :

7 (O ct., 1927) ; re p u b lis h e d by th e N e u e S chw eizer R u n d s c h a u as a p a m p h le t (Z u rich, 1929), w h ic h w as r e p r in te d by R a sc h e r V erlag in 1932, 1948, a n d 1959 (C f . n . 2, in fra ). T ra n s , b y C. F, a n d H , G . B ayn es in C o n trib u tio n s to A n a ly tic a l P sychology (London, a n d N ew Y ork, 1928), p p . 164-88, w h ic h v ersio n h a s b e e n co n su lte d h e re . T h e m o tto is fro m th e tra n s. o f N ietzsc h e by C o m m o n .—E d i t o r s .]

11S

believes h er th e m ost desirable th in g in the w orld. T h u s it is w ith the greatest misgivings th a t I set o u t to treat of this them e. *37 O ne thing, however, is beyond d o u b t: th at w om an today is in the same process of tran sitio n as m an. W h eth er this transi­ tion is a historical tu rn in g -p o in t o r n o t rem ains to be seen. Sometimes, w hen we look back a t history, it seems as though the present tim e had analogies w ith certain periods in the past, w hen great em pires an d civilizations had passed th eir zenith a n d were hastening irresistibly tow ards decay. B ut these an alo ­ gies are deceptive, for there are always renaissances. W h at does move m ore clearly in to the fo reg round is E u ro p e’s position m idw ay betw een th e A siatic East an d the Anglo-Saxon—or shall we say A m erican?—W est. E u ro p e now stands betw een two colossi, bo th u n co u th in th e ir form b u t im placably opposed to one an o th er in th e ir n atu re. T h e y are profoundly different n o t only racially b u t in th e ir ideals. In the W est th ere is th e m axi­ m u m political freedom w ith th e m in im u m personal freedom ; in the East it is ju st th e opposite. W e see in the W est a trem en ­ dous developm ent of E u ro p e’s technological and scientific ten d ­ encies, an d in the F ar East an aw akening of all those sp iritu al forces which, in E urope, these tendencies hold in check. T h e pow er of the W est is m aterial, th at of the East ideal.2 T h e stru g ­ gle betw een these opposites, w hich in the w orld of the E u ro ­ pean m an takes place in the realm of the scientifically applied intellect an d finds expression on th e battlefield and in the state of his bank balance, is, in w om an, a psychic conflict. 238 W h at makes it so uncom m only difficult to discuss th e p ro b ­ lem of the m odern E uropean w om an is th at we are necessarily w ritin g ab o u t a m inority. T h e re is no “m odern E uropean w om an” properly speaking. O r is th e peasant’s wife of today dif­ feren t from h er forbears of a h u n d re d years ago? T h e re is, in fact, a large body of the p o p u latio n th at only to a very lim ited ex ten t lives in th e present an d participates in present-day pro b ­ lems. W e speak of a “w om an’s p ro b lem ,” b u t how m any w om en have problem s? In p ro p o rtio n to the sum -total of E uropean w om en only a d w indling m in o rity really live in the E urope of 2 I n th e th ir ty y e a rs s in c e t h is e ssa y w a s w r itte n th e s ig n ific a n c e o f th e “ E a s t” h a s c h a n g e d a n d h a s la r g e ly a ss u m e d t h e fo r m o f t h e " R u s s ia n E m p ir e .” T h i s a lr e a d y r e a c h e s as far a s c e n tr a l G e r m a n y , b u t i t h a s lo s t n o t h in g o f it s A s ia tic c h a r a c te r . [ A u th o r ’s f o o t n o t e in 1959 p a m p h le t e d i t io n .—E d i t o r s .]

to d a y ; a n d t h e s e a r e c i t y d w e l l e r s a n d b e l o n g —t o p u t i t c a u ­ t i o u s l y —t o t h e m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d o f t h e i r k i n d . T h i s m u s t a lw a y s b e s o , f o r i t is o n l y t h e f e w w h o c l e a r l y e x p r e s s t h e s p i r i t o f t h e p r e s e n t i n a n y a g e . I n t h e f o u r t h a n d f i f th c e n t u r i e s o f o u r e ra th e r e w e re o n ly a v e ry fe w C h ris tia n s w h o in a n y w ay u n d e r s to o d th e s p i r i t o f C h r is tia n ity , th e r e s t w e re s till p r a c ­ t i c a l l y p a g a n . T h e c u l t u r a l p r o c e s s t h a t is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a n e p o c h o p e r a te s m o s t in te n s e ly i n c itie s , f o r i t n e e d s la rg e a g g lo m e r a tio n s o f m e n to m a k e c iv iliz a tio n p o s s ib le , a n d f r o m th e s e a g g lo m e r a tio n s c u l t u r e g r a d u a lly s p r e a d s to t h e s m a lle r , b a c k w a rd g ro u p s . T h u s w e fin d th e p r e s e n t o n ly in th e la rg e c e n tr e s , a n d t h e r e a l o n e d o w e e n c o u n t e r th e “ E u r o p e a n w o m a n ,” th e w o m a n w h o e x p re s s e s th e s o c ia l a n d s p i r i t u a l a sp e c t o f c o n te m p o r a r y E u r o p e . T h e f u r th e r w e g o fro m th e i n ­ flu e n c e o f t h e g r e a t c e n tr e s , th e m o r e w e fin d o u rs e lv e s r e c e d in g i n t o h i s t o r y . I n t h e r e m o t e A l p i n e v a lle y s w e c a n m e e t p e o p l e w h o h a v e n e v e r s e e n a r a i l w a y , a n d i n S p a i n , w h i c h is a l s o a p a r t o f E u r o p e , w e p lu n g e to a d a r k m e d ie v a l a g e la c k in g e v e n a n a l p h a b e t. T h e p e o p le o f th o s e r e g io n s , o r o f th e c o r r e s p o n d i n g s o c ia l s t r a t a , d o n o t l i v e i n o u r E u r o p e b u t i n t h e E u r o p e o f 1400, a n d t h e i r p r o b le m s a r e th o s e o f th e b y g o n e a g e in w h ic h th e y d w e ll. I h a v e a n a ly s e d s u c h p e o p le , a n d h a v e f o u n d m y s e lf c a r r ie d b a c k in to a n a m b ie n c e t h a t w as n o t w a n tin g in h is ­ to ric a l r o m a n c e . *39 T h e " p r e s e n t ” is a t h i n s u r f a c e s t r a t u m t h a t is l a i d d o w n i n t h e g r e a t c e n t r e s o f c i v i l i z a t i o n . I f i t is v e r y t h i n , a s i n T s a r i s t R u s s ia , i t h a s n o m e a n i n g , a s e v e n t s h a v e s h o w n . B u t o n c e i t has a tta in e d a c e r ta in s tre n g th , w e c a n sp e a k o f c iv iliz a tio n a n d p ro g re s s , a n d t h e n p r o b le m s a r is e t h a t a r e c h a r a c te r is tic o f a n e p o c h . I n th is se n se E u r o p e h a s a p re s e n t, a n d th e r e a r e w o m e n w h o liv e i n i t a n d s u ffe r its p r o b le m s . A b o u t th e s e , a n d th e s e o n ly , a r e w e e n t i t l e d t o s p e a k . T h o s e w h o a r e s a t is f i e d w i t h a m e d i e v a l l i f e h a v e n o n e e d o f t h e p r e s e n t a n d its e x p e r i m e n t s . B u t t h e m a n o f t h e p r e s e n t c a n n o t —n o m a t t e r w h a t t h e r e a s o n — t u r n b a c k a g a i n t o t h e p a s t w i t h o u t s u f f e r i n g a n e s s e n t i a l lo s s. O f t e n t h i s t u r n i n g b a c k is a l t o g e t h e r i m p o s s i b l e , e v e n i f h e w e r e p r e p a r e d t o m a k e t h e s a c r if ic e . T h e m a n o f t h e p r e s e n t m u s t w o r k f o r t h e f u t u r e a n d le a v e o th e r s to c o n s e rv e th e p a s t. H e is t h e r e f o r e n o t o n l y a b u i l d e r b u t a l s o a d e s t r o y e r . H e a n d h is w o r ld h a v e b o t h b e c o m e q u e s t i o n a b l e a n d a m b ig u o u s . T h e

ways th at the past shows him and the answers it gives to his questions are insufficient for the needs of the present. A ll the old, com fortable ways are blocked, new paths have been opened up, and new dangers have arisen of which the past knew n o th ­ ing. I t is proverbial that one never learns anything from history, and in regard to present-day problem s it usually teaches us n o th ­ ing. T h e new p ath has to be m ade th ro u g h u n tro d d e n Tegions, w ith o u t presuppositions a n d often, un fo rtu n ately , w ith o u t piety. T h e only th in g th a t can n o t be im proved u p o n is m o ral­ ity, for every a lteratio n of tra d itio n al m orality is by definition an im m orality. T h is bon m o t has an edge to it, against which m any an innovator has barked his shins. *4° All the problem s of the present form a tangled knot, an d it is hardly possible to single o u t one p artic u la r problem and tre a t it in d ep en d en tly of the others. T h u s there is no problem of “w om an in E u ro p e” w ith o u t m an and his w orld. If she is m arried , she usually has to d ep en d econom ically on h er hus­ band; if she is u n m arried and earn in g a living, she is w orking in some profession designed by a m an. Unless she is p rep ared to sacrifice h er w hole erotic life, she again stands in some essential relatio n sh ip to m an. In num erous ways w om an is indissolubly b o u n d u p w ith m a n ’s w orld an d is therefore just as exposed as he is to all the shocks of his world. T h e war, for instance, has affected w om an ju st as profoundly as it has m an, and she has to ad a p t to its consequences as he m ust. W h at the upheavals of the last tw enty o r th irty years m ean for m an ’s w orld is ap p aren t to everyone; we can read ab o u t it every day in the newspapers. B u t w hat it m eans for w om an is n o t so evident. N eith e r p o liti­ cally, n o r econom ically, n o r sp iritually is she a factor of visible im portance. If she were, she w ould loom m ore largely in m an ’s field of vision a n d w ould have to be considered a rival. Some­ tim es she is seen in this role, b u t only as a m an, so to speak, who is accidentally a w om an. B ut since as a ru le h er place is on m an ’s in tim ate side, th e side of him th a t m erely feels an d has no eyes and does n o t w ant to see, w om an appears as an im penetrable mask b eh in d w hich everything possible and im possible can be co n jectu red —and actually seen!—w ith o u t his g ettin g anyw here n ear th e m ark. T h e elem entary fact th at a person always thinks a n o th e r’s psychology is identical w ith his ow n effectively pre­ vents a correct u n d erstan d in g of fem inine psychology. T h is is 116

a b e tte d by w o m an 's ow n unconsciousness a n d passivity, u sefu l th o u g h these m ay be fro m th e b io logical p o in t o f view : she allows h erself to be co n v in ced by th e m a n ’s p ro je c te d feelings. O f course this is a g e n era l h u m a n ch aracteristic, b u t in w o m an it is g iv en a p a rtic u la rly d a n g ero u s tw ist, because in this resp ect she is n o t n aiv e a n d it is o n ly too o fte n h e r in ten tio n to le t h e r­ self be co n v in ced by th em . I t fits in w ith h e r n a tu r e to k eep h e r ego a n d h e r w ill in th e b a c k g ro u n d , so as n o t to h in d e r th e m an in an y way, a n d to in v ite h im to realize his in te n tio n s w ith regard to h e r p erson. T h is is a sexual p a tte rn , b u t it has farreach in g ram ificatio n s in th e fe m in in e psyche. By m a in ta in in g a passive a ttitu d e w ith a n u lte rio r p u rp o se, she h elp s th e m an to realize his ends a n d in th a t way h olds h im . A t th e sam e tim e she is c a u g h t in h e r ow n toils, fo r w hoever digs a p it fo r others falls in to it him self. 24l I a d m it th a t this is a r a th e r u n k in d d e sc rip tio n of a process w hich m ig h t w ell be su n g in m o re lyrical strains. B u t all n a tu ra l things have tw o sides, a n d w h en so m e th in g has to be m ad e c o n ­ scious we m u st see th e shadow side as w ell as th e light. «42 W h e n w e observe th e way in w h ich w om en, since th e second h alf of th e n in e te e n th c en tu ry , hav e b e g u n to take u p m ascu lin e professions, to becom e active in politics, to sit o n com m ittees, etc., w e can see th a t w o m an is in th e process of b re a k in g w ith th e p u rely fe m in in e sex u al p a tte rn of unconsciousness' a n d pas­ sivity, a n d has m a d e a concession to m ascu lin e psychology by esta b lish in g h erself as a visib le m e m b e r of society. She n o lo n g er hides b e h in d th e m ask of M rs. So-and-so, w ith th e o b lig in g in ­ te n tio n o f h a v in g all h e r w ishes fu lfilled by th e m an , o r to m ake h im pay fo r it if th in g s do n o t go as she wishes. *45 T h is step tow ards social in d e p en d e n ce is a necessary response to econom ic a n d o th e r factors, b u t in itself it is only a sym ptom an d n o t th e th in g a b o u t w h ich we are m ost co n cern ed . C er­ tain ly th e co u rag e a n d capacity fo r self-sacrifice of such w om en is ad m ira b le , a n d only th e b lin d c o u ld fail to see th e good th a t has com e o u t o f a ll these efforts. B u t n o o n e can g et ro u n d th e fact th a t by ta k in g u p a m ascu lin e profession, stu d y in g a n d w o rk in g lik e a m an , w o m an is d o in g so m eth in g n o t w holly in accord w ith , if n o t d ire ctly in ju rio u s to, h e r fe m in in e n a tu re . She is d o in g so m e th in g th a t w o u ld scarcely be possible for a m an to do, unless h e w ere a C hinese. C o u ld he, for instance, be 117

a nursem aid or ru n a kindergarten? W hen I speak of injury, I do not mean merely physiological injury but above all psychic injury. It is a wom an’s outstanding characteristic that she can do anything for the love of a man. But those women who can achieve som ething im portant for the love of a thing are most exceptional, because this does not really agree with their nature. Love for a thing is a m an’s prerogative. But since masculine and fem inine elements are united in our hum an nature, a m an can live in the fem inine part of himself, and a woman in her m asculine part. N one the less the fem inine elem ent in m an is only som ething in the background, as is the masculine elem ent in woman. If one lives ou t the opposite sex in oneself one is living in one’s own background, and one’s real individuality suffers. A m an should live as a m an and a woman as a woman. T h e contrasexual elem ent in either sex is always dangerously close to the unconscious. It is even typical that the effects of the unconscious upon the conscious m ind have a contrasexual char­ acter. For instance the soul (anima, psyche) has a fem inine character which compensates the masculine consciousness. (Mys­ tical instruction among prim itives is exclusively a masculine concern, corresponding to the function of the Catholic priest.) T h e im m ediate presence of the unconscious exerts.a mag­ netic influence on the conscious processes. T h is explains the fear or even horror we have of the unconscious. It is a purpose­ ful defence-reaction of the conscious m ind. T h e contrasexual elem ent has a mysterious charm tinged with fear, perhaps even with disgust. For this reason its charm is particularly attractive and fascinating, even when it comes to us not directly from ou t­ side, in the guise of a woman, b u t from w ithin, as a psychic in ­ fluence—for instance in the form of a tem ptation to abandon oneself to a mood or an affect. T h is example is not character­ istic of women, for a woman’s moods and emotions do not come to her directly from the unconscious b u t are peculiar to her fem inine nature. T hey are therefore never naive, b u t are m ixed with an unacknowledged purpose. W hat comes to a woman from the unconscious is a sort of opinion, which spoils her mood only secondarily. These opinions lay claim to being abso­ lute truths, and they prove to be the more fixed and incorrigible the less they are subjected to conscious criticism. Like the moods and feelings of a m an, they are somewhat hazy and often 1 18

totally u n conscious, a n d are seldom recognized for w h at they are. T h e y a re in fact collective, h a v in g th e c h aracter of th e opposite sex, as th o u g h a m a n —th e fath er, for e x am p le—h ad th o u g h t of th em . *45 T h u s it can h a p p e n —in d ee d it is alm o st th e r u le —th a t th e m in d of a w o m an w h o takes u p a m ascu lin e profession is in flu ­ enced by h e r u n co n scio u s m asc u lin ity in a way n o t n o ticeab le to h erself b u t q u ite ob v io u s to everybody in h e r e n v iro n m e n t. She develops a k in d of rig id in te lle c tu a lity based o n so-called p rin cip les, a n d backs th e m u p w ith a w hole host of a rg u m en ts w hich always ju s t m iss th e m ark in th e m ost irr ita tin g way, a n d always in je c t a little so m e th in g in to th e p ro b le m th a t is n o t really th ere. U n conscious assu m p tio n s o r o p in io n s are th e w orst enem y o f w o m an ; they can even grow in to a positively d em o n ic passion th a t exasperates a n d disgusts m en, a n d does th e w om an herself th e g reatest in ju ry by g ra d u ally sm o th e rin g th e ch arm a n d m e a n in g of h e r fe m in in ity a n d d riv in g it in to th e back­ g ro u n d . Such a d e v e lo p m e n t n a tu ra lly ends in p ro fo u n d psy­ chological d isu n io n , in sh o rt, in a neurosis. *46 N a tu rally , th in g s n e e d n o t go to this len g th , b u t lo n g before this p o in t is rea ch e d th e m e n ta l m a sc u lin izatio n of th e w o m an has u n w elco m e resu lts. She m ay p e rh ap s be a good co m rad e to a m an w ith o u t h av in g an y access to his feelings. T h e reaso n is th a t h e r a n im u s (th a t is, h e r m asc u lin e ratio n a lism , assuredly n o t tru e reasonableness!) has sto p p ed u p th e ap p ro ach es to h e r ow n feeling. She m ay even becom e frig id , as a defence ag ain st th e m asc u lin e type o f sex u ality th a t corresponds to h e r m as­ c u lin e type o f m in d . O r, if th e defen ce-reaction is n o t successful, she develops, in ste ad of th e recep tiv e sexuality of w om an, a n aggressive, u rg e n t fo rm of sex u ality th a t is m o re ch aracteristic of a m an. T h is re a c tio n is likew ise a p u rp o sefu l p h e n o m en o n , in te n d e d to th ro w a b rid g e across by m a in force to th e slowly v an ish in g m an. A th ird possibility, especially fav o u red in A ngloSaxon c o u n trie s, is o p tio n a l h o m o sex u ality in the m ascu lin e role. *47 I t m ay th e re fo re b e said th at, w h en ev er th e a ttra c tio n of the a n im u s becom es n o ticeab le, th e re is a q u ite special n eed for th e w om an to have a n in tim a te re la tio n s h ip w ith th e o th e r sex. M any w o m en in this s itu a tio n are fully aw are of this necessity an d p ro ceed —faute de m i e u x —to stir u p a n o th e r of those

present-day problem s th at is no less painful, nam ely, th e m ar­ riage problem , s4® T rad itio n ally , m an is regarded as the m arriage breaker. T h is legend comes from tim es long past, w hen m en still had leisure to pursue all sorts of pastimes. B ut today life makes so m any dem ands on m en th at the noble hidalgo, D on Ju an , is to be seen now here save in the theatre. M ore th an ever m an loves his com­ fort, for ours is an age of neurasthenia, im potence, and easy chairs. T h e re is no energy left for w indow -clim bing and duels. If anything is to happen in the way of adultery it m ust n o t be too difficult. In no respect m ust it cost too m uch, hence the ad v en tu re can only be of a transitory kind. T h e m an of today is thoroughly scared of jeopardizing m arriage as an in stitu tio n . H e is a firm believer in doing things on the quiet, and therefore supports pro stitution. I w ould wager th a t in the M iddle Ages, w ith its notorious bagnios and unrestricted pro stitu tio n , a d u l­ tery was relatively m ore freq u en t than it is today. In this respect m arriage should be safer now than it ever was. B u t in reality it is b eginning to be discussed. It is a bad sign w hen doctors begin w ritin g books of advice on how to achieve the “perfect m ar­ riage.” H ealthy people need no doctors. M arriage today has indeed become ra th e r precarious. In A m erica ab o u t a q u a rte r of the m arriages end in divorce. A nd the rem arkable th in g is th a t this tim e the scapegoat is no t the m an b u t the wom an. She is the one who doubts and feels u ncertain. It is no t surprising th at this is so, for in post-war E urope there is such an alarm ing surplus of u n m arried w om en that it w ould be inconceivable if there were no reaction from th a t q u arter. Such a p ilin g u p of m isery has inescapable consequences. It is no longer a question of a few dozen voluntary or involuntary old maids here and there, b u t of m illions. O u r legislation and o u r social m orality give no answer to this question. O r can the C hurch provide a satisfactory answer? Should we b u ild gigantic n unneries to accom m odate all these women? O r should tolerated pro stitu tio n be increased? Obviously this is impossible, since we are dealing n e ith er w ith saints n o r sinners b u t w ith ordinary wom en who cannot register th eir sp iritu al requ irem ents w ith the police. T h e y are decent w om en w ho w ant to m arry, and if this is not possible, well—the next best thing. W h en it comes to the ques­ tio n of love, laws an d institutions and ideals m ean less to 120

w om an th a n ever b efore. If th in g s c a n n o t go stra ig h t they w ill have to go crooked. *49 A t th e b e g in n in g of o u r era, three-fifths of th e p o p u la tio n of Italy consisted of slaves—h u m a n chattels w ith o u t rig h ts. Every R o m an was s u rro u n d e d by slaves. T h e slave a n d his psychology flooded a n c ie n t Italy, a n d every R o m a n becam e inw ardly a slave. L iv in g co n stan tly in th e atm o sp h ere of slaves, h e becam e infected w ith th e ir psychology. N o o n e can sh ield h im self from this unconscious influence. E ven today the E u ro p e a n , how ever highly developed, c a n n o t live w ith im p u n ity am o n g th e N e ­ groes in A frica; th e ir psychology gets in to h im u n n o tic e d a n d unconsciously he becom es a N egro. T h e re is no fig h tin g against it. In A frica th e re is a w ell-know n tech n ical expression for this: “going b lack .” I t is n o m ere sn o b b ery th a t th e E nglish sh o u ld con sid er an y o n e b o rn in th e colonies, even th o u g h th e best blood m ay r u n in his veins, “slightly in fe rio r.” T h e r e are facts to su p p o rt this view. *5» A d ire c t re su lt of slave influence was the strange m elancholy an d lo n g in g fo r d eliv eran ce th a t p erv ad ed im p e ria l R o m e a n d fo u n d strik in g ex pression in V irg il’s F o u rth Eclogue. T h e ex­ plosive sp read of C h ristian ity , a re lig io n w hich m ig h t be said to have risen fro m th e sewers of R o m e —N ietzsche called it a “slave in su rre c tio n in m o rals” —was a su d d en reac tio n th a t set the soul o f th e low est slave o n a p a r w ith th a t of th e d iv in e Caesar. S im ilar th o u g h p erh ap s less m o m en to u s processes of psychological co m p en satio n have rep eated ly o ccu rred in th e his­ tory of th e w orld. W h e n ev e r som e social o r psychological m o n ­ strosity is created , a co m p en satio n comes a lo n g in defiance of all leg islatio n a n d all ex p ectatio n . *5l S o m eth in g sim ila r is h a p p e n in g to w om en in present-day E urope. T o o m u c h th a t is in adm issible, th a t has n o t been lived, is a c cu m u la tin g in th e unconscious, a n d this is b o u n d to have an effect. Secretaries, typists, shop-girls, all are agents of this process, a n d th ro u g h a m illio n su b te rra n e a n ch an n els creeps th e influence th a t is u n d e rm in in g m arriage. F or the desire of all these w o m en is n o t to have sexual a d v en tu res—only the s tu p id could believe th a t—b u t to g et m arried . T h e possessors of th a t bliss m u st be ousted, n o t as a ru le by nak ed force, b u t by th a t silent, o b stin a te desire w hich, as we know , has m agical effects, like th e fixed stare o f a snake. T h is was ever th e way of w om en. 181

W h a t is th e a ttitu d e of th e m a rrie d w om an to all this? She clings to th e old id ea th a t m an is th e scapegoat, th a t h e sw itches fro m o n e love-affair to a n o th e r as h e pleases, a n d so on. O n th e stre n g th of these o u tw o rn co n cep tio n s she can w ra p h erself still m o re deeply in h e r jealousies. B u t a ll th is is o n ly on th e surface. N e ith e r th e p rid e o f th e R o m an p a tric ia n n o r th e th ic k w alls of th e im p e ria l palace availed to keep o u t th e slave in fe c tio n . In th e sam e way, no w om an can escape th e secret, c o m p ellin g atm o sp h ere w ith w hich h e r ow n sister, p erhaps, is en v elo p in g h e r, th e stifling a tm o sp h ere o f a life th a t has n ev er b e e n lived. U n liv e d life is a d estru ctiv e, irresistib le force th a t w orks softly b u t in ex o rab ly . T h e re su lt is th a t th e m a rrie d w o m a n begins to have d o u b ts a b o u t m arriag e. T h e u n m a rrie d b eliev e in it b e ­ cause they w ant it. E q u ally , th e m an believes in m a rria g e because of his love of c o m fo rt a n d a se n tim e n ta l b e lie f in in s ti­ tu tio n s, w hich for h im always te n d to becom e objects of feeling. *53 Since w om en have to be dow n to e a rth in m atters of feeling, a c e rta in fact sh o u ld n o t escape o u r no tice. T h is is th e pos­ sib ility of co n tra ce p tiv e m easures. C h ild re n are o n e o f th e m a in reasons fo r m a in ta in in g a resp o n sib le a ttitu d e tow ards m a r­ riage. If th is reason disappears, th e n th e th in g s th a t a re “n o t d o n e ” h a p p e n easily en o u g h . T h is ap p lies p rim a rily to u n m a r­ rie d w o m e n , w h o thus have an o p p o rtu n ity to c o n tra c t an “a p p ro x im a te ” m arriag e. B u t it is a co n sid e ra tio n th a t co u n ts also w ith all those m a rrie d w om en w ho, as I have show n in my essay “ M arriag e as a Psychological R e la tio n s h ip ,” 3 are th e “ c o n tain ers.” By this I m e an w om en w hose d em an d s as in d i­ v id u als are n o t satisfied, o r n o t w holly satisfied, by th e ir h u s­ b ands. F inally, c o n tra c e p tio n is a fact o f en o rm o u s im p o rta n c e to w om en in g en eral, because it does aw ay w ith th e co n sta n t fear o f preg n an cy a n d th e care o f a n ever-increasing n u m b e r of c h ild re n . T h is d eliv eran ce from b on d ag e to n a tu re b rin g s a release o f psychic energies th a t in e v ita b ly seek a n o u tle t. W h e n ­ ev er a su m of energy finds n o co n g en ial goal it causes a dis­ tu rb a n c e o f th e psychic e q u ilib riu m . L ack in g a conscious goal, it rein fo rces th e unconscious a n d gives rise to u n c e rta in ty a n d d o u b t. *54 A n o th e r facto r of g re a t im p o rtan c e is th e m o re o r less o p e n *

5*

a In T h e D e v e lo p m e n t o f P ersonality, Coll. W orks,

V o l.

17.

255

discussion o f th e sexual p ro b le m . T h is te rrito ry , once so o b ­ scure, has now becom e a focus of scientific a n d o th e r interests. T h in g s can be h e a rd a n d said in society th a t form erly w o u ld have b een q u ite im possible. L arge n u m b e rs of people have learn ed to th in k m o re freely a n d honestly, a n d have com e to realize how im p o rta n t these m atters are. T h e discussion of th e sexual p ro b le m is, how ever, only a som ew hat cru d e p re lu d e to a far d e e p e r q u estio n , a n d th a t is th e q u e stio n of the psycho­ logical re la tio n sh ip b etw een th e sexes. In com parison w ith this the o th e r pales in to insignificance, a n d w ith it we e n te r th e real d o m ain of w om an. W o m a n ’s psychology is fo u n d e d o n th e p rin c ip le of Eros, the g reat b in d e r a n d loosener, w hereas from a n c ie n t tim es the ru lin g p rin c ip le ascrib ed to m an is Logos. T h e concept of Eros could be expressed in m o d e rn term s as psychic relatedness, a n d th a t o f Logos as ob jectiv e in terest. In th e eyes of th e o rd in a ry m an, love in its tru e sense coincides w ith th e in s titu tio n of m a r­ riage, a n d o u tsid e m arriag e th ere is only a d u lte ry o r “p la to n ic ” frien d sh ip . F o r w o m an , m arriag e is n o t an in s titu tio n a t all b u t a h u m a n lo v e-relatio n sh ip —a t least th a t is w h at she w ould like to believe. (Since h e r Eros is n o t naive b u t is m ix ed w ith other, u n av o w ed m otives—m arriag e as a la d d e r to social posi­ tion, etc.—th e p rin c ip le c a n n o t be ap p lie d in any ab so lu te sense.) M arriag e m eans to h e r an exclusive rela tio n sh ip . She can e n d u re its exclusiveness all th e m o re easily, w ith o u t d y in g of en n u i, in asm u ch as she has c h ild re n o r n e a r relativ es w ith w hom she has a n o less in tim a te re la tio n sh ip th a n w ith h e r hus­ band. T h e fact th a t she has n o sexual re la tio n sh ip w ith these others m eans n o th in g , fo r th e sexual re la tio n s h ip is of far less im p o rtan ce to h e r th a n th e psychic rela tio n sh ip . I t is en o u g h th at she a n d h e r h u sb a n d b o th believe th e ir re la tio n s h ip to be u n iq u e a n d exclusive. If he h ap p en s to be th e “c o n ta in e r” he feels suffocated by this exclusiveness, especially if he fails to notice th a t th e exclusiveness of his wife is n o th in g b u t a pious fraud. In re ality she is d istrib u te d am ong th e c h ild re n a n d am ong as m any m em b ers of th e fam ily as possible, th u s m a in ­ tain in g any n u m b e r o f in tim a te re latio n sh ip s. If h e r h u sb an d h ad a n y th in g like as m any relatio n sh ip s w ith o th e r p eo p le she w ould be m ad w ith jealousy. M ost m en, tho u g h , are erotically b lin d e d —th ey co m m it th e u n p a rd o n a b le m istake of confusing 123

Eros w ith sex. A m a n th in k s he possesses a w om an if h e has h e r sexually. H e n ev er possesses h e r less, fo r to a w o m an th e Erosre la tio n sh ip is the re a l a n d decisive one. F o r h er, m a rria g e is a re la tio n sh ip w ith sex th ro w n in as a n acc o m p a n im e n t. Since sex is a fo rm id ab le th in g o n a cc o u n t of its consequences, it is useful to have it in a safe place. B u t w h en it is less of a d a n g er it also becom es less re le v an t, a n d th e n th e q u e stio n of re la tio n ­ sh ip m oves in to th e fo reg ro u n d . 256 I t is ju s t h e re th a t the w om an ru n s in to g re a t difficulties w ith h e r h u sb an d , for the q u e stio n o f re la tio n s h ip b o rd e rs o n a re ­ g io n th a t for him is d a rk a n d p a in fu l. H e can face th is q u e stio n o n ly w hen the w om an carries th e b u rd e n of suffering, th a t is, w h en he is the “c o n ta in e d ” —in o th e r w ords, w h e n she can im ag in e herself h av in g a re la tio n s h ip w ith a n o th e r m an , a n d as a consequence suffering d is u n io n w ith in herself. T h e n it is she w ho has the p a in fu l p ro b le m , a n d he is n o t o b lig e d to see his ow n, w hich is a g re a t re lie f to h im . In th is s itu a tio n h e is n o t u n lik e a th ie f w ho, q u ite undeserved ly , finds h im self in the en v iab le p o sitio n o f h av in g b e e n fo restalled by a n o th e r th ie f w ho has b een c au g h t by th e police. S u ddenly he becom es a n h o n o u ra b le , im p a rtia l o n lo o k er. In any o th e r situ a tio n a m an always finds th e discussion o f p erso n al re la tio n s p a in fu l a n d b o rin g , ju s t as his w ife w o uld find it b o rin g if h e e x am in ed h e r o n th e C ritiq u e o f P u re Reason. F o r h im , E ros is a shadow la n d w hich entangles h im in his fe m in in e unconscious, in som e­ th in g “psychic,” w hile for w om an Logos is a d eadly b o rin g k in d of sophistry if she is n o t actu ally re p e lle d a n d frig h te n e d by it. a57 J u s t as w om an began, tow ards th e en d o f th e n in e te e n th cen ­ tu ry , to m ake a concession to m a sc u lin ity by ta k in g h e r place as an in d e p e n d e n t factor in th e social w o rld , so m a n has m ade, so m ew hat hesitan tly , a concession to fe m in in ity by c re a tin g a new psychology of com plex p h e n o m e n a , in a u g u ra te d b y th e sexual psychology of F reu d . W h a t th is psychology owes to th e d ire c t influence o f w om en—psy ch iatrists’ co n su ltin g -ro o m s are p acked w ith w o m en —is a th e m e th a t w o u ld fill a large vo lu m e. I am sp eak in g h ere n o t o nly o f an aly tical psychology b u t o f th e b e g in n in g s of psychopathology in g en eral. By far th e g re a test n u m b e r of “classic” cases, b e g in n in g w ith th e “ Seeress o f Prevorst,” w ere w om en, w ho, p erh ap s unconsciously, took enor124

m ous tro u b le to p u t th e ir ow n psychology on view in th e m ost d ram atic fashion, an d th u s d em o n strated to the w orld th e w hole q u estio n of psychic re latio n sh ip . W o m en like F rau H auffe a n d H elen e S m ith 4 a n d Miss B eau ch am p have assured for th e m ­ selves a k in d o f im m o rtality , ra th e r like those w orthy folk w hose m iraculous cures b ro u g h t fam e a n d p ro sp erity to the w o n d er­ w orking spot. *58 A n asto n ish in g ly h ig h p ercen tag e of this m ateria l comes from w om en. T h is is n o t as rem a rk a b le as it m ig h t seem, for w om en are far m o re “ psychological” th a n m en. A m an is usually satis­ fied w ith “logic” alone. E v e ry th in g “ psychic,” “ u nconscious” etc., is re p u g n a n t to h im ; he considers it vague, n eb u lo u s, and m o rb id . H e is in te re ste d in things, in facts, a n d n o t in th e feel­ ings a n d fantasies th a t clu ste r ro u n d th em o r have n o th in g to do w ith th em . T o a w om an it is g enerally m o re im p o rta n t to know how a m an feels a b o u t a th in g th an to know th e th in g itself. A ll those th in g s w h ich are m erely fu tile im p e d im e n ta to a m an are im p o rta n t to her. So it is n a tu ra lly w om an w ho is the m ost d ire c t e x p o n e n t of psychology an d gives it its ric h est con­ tent. V ery m an y th in g s can be perceived in h e r w ith th e u tm o st distinctness w h ich in a m an are m ere shadow y processes in the back g ro u n d , w hose very existence he is u n w illin g ta a d m it. B ut, u n lik e th e o b jectiv e discussion a n d verification of facts, a h u ­ m an re la tio n sh ip leads in to the w o rld of th e psyche, in to th a t in term ed iate realm betw een sense a n d sp irit, w hich co n tain s som eth in g of b o th a n d yet forfeits n o th in g of its ow n u n iq u e character. *59 In to this te rrito ry a m a n m u st v e n tu re if he wishes to m eet w om an h a lf way. C ircum stances have forced h e r to a c q u ire a n u m b e r of m ascu lin e traits, so th a t she shall n o t re m a in cau g h t in an a n tiq u a te d , p u re ly in stin c tu a l fem in in ity , lost a n d alone in th e w o rld of m en. So, too, m an w ill be forced to dev elo p his fem in in e side, to o p en his eyes to th e psyche a n d to Eros. I t is a task h e c a n n o t avoid, unless he prefers to go tra ilin g after w om an in a hopelessly boyish fashion, w o rsh ip p in g from afar b u t always in d a n g e r of b e in g stow ed away in h er pocket. *6o p o r th ose in love w ith m ascu lin ity o r fem in in ity p e r se the tra d itio n a l m ed iev al m arriag e is e n o u g h —a n d a th o ro u g h ly 4 [See P sychiatric Studies, Coll. W orks, Vol. i, index, s. vv.— E d i t o r s .]

p ra isew o rth y , w e ll-tried , u sefu l in s titu tio n it is. B u t th e m a n of to d ay finds it e x tre m e ly difficult to r e tu r n to it, a n d fo r m a n y th e w ay back is sim p ly im p o ssib le, becau se th is so rt of m a rria g e can ex ist o nly by s h u ttin g o u t all c o n te m p o ra ry p ro b le m s. D o u b tle ss th e re w ere m a n y R o m a n s w h o c o u ld s h u t th e ir eyes to th e slave p ro b le m a n d to C h ris tia n ity , a n d sp e n d th e ir days in a m o re o r less p le a sa n t u nconscio u sn ess. T h e y c o u ld d o th is b ecause th ey h a d n o re la tio n to th e p re se n t, o n ly to th e past. A ll those fo r w h o m m a rria g e c o n ta in s n o p ro b le m a re n o t liv in g in th e p re se n t, a n d w h o sh all say th ey a re n o t blessed! M o d e rn m a n finds m a rria g e o n ly to o p ro b le m a tic a l. I re c e n tly h e a rd a G e rm a n sch o la r e x cla im b e fo re a n a u d ie n c e of several h u n d r e d p eo p le: “ O u r m a rria g e s are sh am m a rria g e s!” I a d ­ m ire d his c o u ra g e a n d sin ce rity . U su ally w e express ou rselv es less d ire c tly , c a u tio u sly o fferin g g o o d advice as to w h a t m ig h t b e d o n e —in o rd e r n o t to ta rn is h th e id eal. B u t fo r th e m o d e rn w o m a n —le t m e n ta k e n o te o f th is —th e m e d ie v al m a rria g e is a n id e a l n o lo n g e r. T r u e , she keeps h e r d o u b ts to h erself, a n d h id es h e r reb e llio u sn ess; o n e w o m a n b ecause she is m a rrie d a n d finds it h ig h ly in c o n v e n ie n t if th e d o o r of th e safe is n o t h e rm e tic a lly sealed, a n o th e r b ecause she is u n m a rrie d a n d to o v irtu o u s to lo o k h e r ow n te n d e n c ie s sq u a re ly in th e face. N e v erth ele ss, th e ir new ly-w on m a sc u lin ity m akes it im p o ssib le fo r e ith e r o f th e m to b elie v e in m a rria g e in its tra d itio n a l fo rm (“ H e sh all b e th y m a ste r” ). M a sc u lin ity m ean s k n o w in g w h a t o n e w an ts a n d d o in g w h a t is necessary to ach iev e it. O n ce th is lesson has b e e n le a rn e d it is so obvio u s th a t it can n e v e r a g ain b e fo rg o tte n w ith o u t tre m e n d o u s psychic loss. T h e in d e p e n d e n c e a n d c ritic a l ju d g m e n t she a c q u ire s th ro u g h th is k n o w led g e a re p o sitiv e valu es a n d a re fe lt as such by th e w o m an . She can n e v e r p a rt w ith th e m ag ain . T h e sam e is tru e o f th e m a n w ho, w ith g re a t efforts, w ins th a t n e e d fu l fe m in in e in s ig h t in to his o w n psyche, o fte n a t th e cost of m u c h suffering. H e w ill n e v e r le t it go ag ain , b ecause he is th o ro u g h ly a w are o f th e im p o rta n c e of w h a t h e has w on. A t first g la n ce it m ig h t b e th o u g h t th a t su ch a m a n a n d w o m a n w o u ld b e especially lik e ly to m a k e th e “ p e rfe c t m a r­ ria g e .” I n re a lity th is is n o t so; o n th e c o n tra ry , a co n flict b eg in s im m e d ia te ly . W h a t th e w o m an , in h e r n ew -fo u n d self-assurance, w ants to d o is n o t a t a ll p le asin g to th e m a n , w h ile th e feelin g s 126

he has discovered in him self are far from agreeable to the wom an. W h at b o th have discovered in them selves is n o t a v irtu e or an y th in g of in trin sic value; it is som ething com paratively inferior, an d it m ig h t justly be co ndem ned if it were u n d e r­ stood as the outcom e of a personal choice or m ood. A nd that, indeed, is w hat usually happens. T h e m asculinity of the w om an and the fem in in ity of th e m an are inferior, an d it is reg rettab le that the full value of th e ir personalities should be con tam in ated by som ething th a t is less valuable. O n the o th er hand, the shadow belongs to th e wholeness of the personality: the strong m an m ust som ew here be weak, som ew here the clever m an m ust be stupid, otherw ise he is too good to be tru e and falls back on pose an d bluff. Is it n o t an o ld tru th th at w om an loves the w eak­ nesses of the strong m an m ore th an his strength, and the stu p id ­ ity of the clever m an m ore th an his cleverness? H er love wants the w hole m an —n o t m ere m asculinity as such b u t also its nega­ tion. T h e love of w om an is n o t sentim ent, as is a m a n ’s, b u t a will th a t is at tim es terrifyingly u n sen tim en tal an d can even force h er to self-sacrifice. A m an w ho is loved in this way can­ n o t escape his in fe rio r side, for he can only respond to the reality of h e r love w ith his ow n reality. A nd this reality is no fair sem blance, b u t a faith fu l reflection of th at etern al hum an n atu re w hich links to g eth er all h u m an ity , a reflection of the heights an d depths of h u m an life w hich are com m on to us all. In this reality we are no longer d ifferentiated persons (persona means a mask), b u t are conscious of o u r com m on h u m a n bonds. H ere I strip off th e distinctiveness of my own personality, social or otherw ise, an d reach dow n to the problem s of the present day, problem s w hich do n o t arise o u t of myself—or so at least I like to im agine. H ere I can no longer deny them ; I feel and know myself to be one of m any, a n d w hat moves the m any moves me. In o u r strength we are in d ep en d en t and isolated, and are m asters of o u r ow n fate; in o u r weakness we are d ep en d ­ ent and b o u n d , an d becom e u n w illin g in stru m en ts of fate, for here it is n o t th e in d iv id u al will th at counts b u t the w ill of the species. W h a t th e two sexes have w on th ro u g h m u tu a l assim ilation is an in ferio rity w hen view ed from th e tw o-dim ensional, p er­ sonal w orld of appearances, an d an im m oral p reten sio n if re­ garded as a personal claim . B u t in its truest m eaning for life i«7

an d society it is an overcom ing of personal isolation a n d selfish reserve in o rd e r to take an active p a rt in th e so lu tio n of presentday problem s. If, therefore, th e w om an of today consciously or unconsciously loosens th e cohesion of th e m arriage b o n d by h e r sp iritu a l o r econom ic in d ep en d en ce, this is n o t th e expression of h e r personal w ill, b u t of the w ill of the species, w hich m akes h er, th e in d iv id u al w om an, its tool. a63 T h e in stitu tio n of m arriag e is such a valuable thing, b o th socially an d m orally—religious people even reg ard it as a sacra­ m e n t—th a t it is q u ite u n d e rstan d ab le th a t any w eakening of it sh o u ld be felt as u ndesirable, in d eed scandalous. H u m a n im p e r­ fection is always a discord in th e harm ony of o u r ideals. U n ­ fortu n ately , no one lives in th e w orld as we desire it, b u t in the w o rld of actu ality w here good an d evil clash an d destroy one an o th e r, w here no creatin g o r b u ild in g can be done w ith o u t d irty in g o n e’s hands. W h en ev er things get really bad, th e re is always some one to assure us am id g reat ap p lau se th a t n o th in g has h ap p en ed an d ev erything is in order. I rep eat, anyone w ho lives an d thinks like this is n o t liv in g in the present. I f we exam in e any m arriage w ith a really critical eye, we shall find— unless acu te pressure of circum stances has com pletely e x tin ­ guished all signs of “ psychological” tro u b le —sym ptom s of its w eakening a n d clandestine d isru p tio n , “m arriage pro b lem s” ran g in g from u n b e ara b le m oods to neurosis a n d adultery. U n ­ fortu n ately , those w ho can still b e a r to rem ain unconscious can n o t be im itated ; th e ir exam ple is n o t infectious eno u g h to in d u ce m ore conscious people to descend again to th e level of m ere unconsciousness. s64 A s to all those—a n d they are m any—w ho are n o t obliged to live in th e present, it is extrem ely im p o rta n t th a t they sh o u ld believe in th e ideal of m arriag e a n d h o ld fast to it. N o th in g is gain ed if a v alu ab le ideal is m erely destroyed a n d n o t rep laced by so m eth in g b etter. T h e re fo re even th e w om en hesitate, w h eth er they are m a rried o r no t, to go over openly to th e side o f reb ellio n . B u t at least they do n o t follow the lead of th a t w ell-know n authoress who, after try in g o u t all sorts of ex p eri­ m ents, en d ed u p in th e secure haven of m atrim ony, w h ereu p o n m arriag e becam e th e best so lu tio n , a n d all those w ho d id n o t achieve it could b ro o d on th e ir m istakes a n d en d th e ir days in p io u s re n u n c ia tio n . F or th e m o d ern w om an m arriag e is n o t as 128

easy as th a t. H e r h u s b a n d w o u ld have so m eth in g to say o n this score. «65 So lo n g as th e re a re legalistic clauses th a t lay d o w n exactly w hat a d u lte ry is, w om en w ill have to re m a in w ith th e ir d o u b ts. B u t do o u r legislators really know w h at “a d u lte ry ” is? Is th e ir d e fin itio n o f it th e final e m b o d im e n t o f th e tru th ? F ro m th e psychological sta n d p o in t, th e only o n e th a t co u n ts fo r a w om an, it is a w retch ed piece o f b u n g lin g , lik e ev ery th in g else c o n triv e d by m en for th e p u rp o se of codifying love. F o r a w om an, love has n o th in g to do w ith “ m a rita l m isc o n d u ct,” “ e x tra m a rita l in te r ­ course,” “d e ce p tio n o f th e h u s b a n d ,” o r any o f th e less savoury form ulas in v e n te d by th e ero tically b lin d m ascu lin e in te lle c t a n d echoed by th e self-o p in io n ated d e m o n in w om an. N o b o d y b u t th e ab so lu te b eliev er in th e in v io la b ility of tra d itio n a l m a r­ riage co u ld p e rp e tra te such breaches of good taste, ju s t as only the believ er in G o d can really blasphem e. W h o ev e r d o u b ts m a r­ riage in th e first place c a n n o t in frin g e ag ain st it; fo r h im th e legal d e fin itio n is in v a lid because, lik e St. P au l, h e feels him self b eyond th e law, o n th e h ig h e r p lan e of love. B u t because the believers in th e law so fre q u e n tly trespass against th e ir ow n laws, w h e th e r fro m stu p id ity , te m p ta tio n , o r m ere viciousness, the m o d e rn w om an begins to w o n d e r w h e th e r she too m ay n o t b elong to th e sam e category. F ro m th e tra d itio n a l sta n d p o in t she does, a n d she has to realize this in o rd e r to sm ash th e idol of h e r ow n resp ectab ility . T o b e “resp ectab le” m eans, as the w ord tells us, to allow oneself to be seen; a resp ectab le person is one w ho com es u p to p u b lic expectatio n s, w ho w ears an ideal m ask—in short, is a frau d . “ G ood fo rm ” is n o t a frau d , b u t w hen resp ectab ility represses th e psyche, th e G od-given essence of m an, th e n o n e becom es w h a t C h rist called a w h ite d sep u lch re. 366 T h e m o d e rn w om an has becom e conscious of th e u n d e n ia b le fact th a t only in th e state of love can she a tta in th e h ig h est an d best of w hich she is capable, a n d this know ledge drives h e r to th e o th e r re a liza tio n th a t love is b ey o n d th e law. H e r resp ecta­ b ility revolts ag ain st this, a n d one is in c lin e d to id e n tify this reactio n w ith p u b lic o p in io n . T h a t w o u ld b e th e lesser evil; w hat is w orse is th a t p u b lic o p in io n is in h e r blood. I t comes to h e r like a voice from w ith in , a so rt o f conscience, a n d this is th e pow er th a t holds h e r in check. She is u n aw are th a t love, h e r m ost personal, m ost p rized possession, co u ld b rin g h e r in to 129

a67

268

a69

270

c o n f li c t w i t h h i s t o r y . S u c h a t h i n g w o u l d s e e m t o h e r m o s t u n e x ­ p e c te d a n d a b s u r d . B u t w h o , if i t c o m e s to th a t, h a s f u lly r e a liz e d t h a t h i s t o r y is n o t c o n t a i n e d i n t h i c k b o o k s b u t l i v e s i n o u r v e r y b lo o d ? S o l o n g a s a w o m a n liv e s t h e l i f e o f t h e p a s t s h e c a n n e v e r c o m e in to c o n f lic t w ith h is to r y . B u t n o s o o n e r d o e s s h e b e g i n to d e v ia te , h o w e v e r s lig h tly , f r o m a c u l t u r a l t r e n d t h a t h a s d o m i ­ n a te d th e p a st th a n sh e e n c o u n te rs th e fu ll w e ig h t o f h is to ric a l in e r tia , a n d th is u n e x p e c te d sh o c k m a y i n ju r e h e r , p e r h a p s fa ta lly . H e r h e s ita tio n a n d h e r d o u b t a r e u n d e r s ta n d a b l e e n o u g h , fo r, if s h e s u b m its to t h e la w o f lo v e , s h e fin d s t h a t s h e is n o t o n l y i n a h i g h l y d i s a g r e e a b l e a n d d u b i o u s s i t u a t i o n , w h e r e e v e ry k in d o f le w d n e ss a n d d e p r a v ity a b o u n d s , b u t a c tu ­ a l l y c a u g h t b e t w e e n t w o u n i v e r s a l f o r c e s —h i s t o r i c a l i n e r t i a a n d th e d iv in e u rg e to c re a te . W h o , th e n , w ill b la m e h e r fo r h e s ita tin g ? D o n o t m o s t m e n p r e f e r to r e s t o n t h e i r la u r e ls r a t h e r t h a n g e t i n t o a h o p e le s s c o n flic t as to w h e th e r th e y s h a ll o r s h a ll n o t m a k e h is to ry ? I n t h e e n d i t b o i l s d o w n t o t h i s : is o n e p r e p a r e d t o b r e a k w i t h tr a d itio n , to b e “ u n h is to r ic a l” in o r d e r to m a k e h is to ry , o r n o t? N o o n e c a n m a k e h i s t o r y w h o is n o t w i l l i n g t o r i s k e v e r y t h i n g f o r it, to c a r r y t h e e x p e r i m e n t w i t h h is o w n life t h r o u g h to t h e b i t t e r e n d , a n d t o d e c l a r e t h a t h i s l i f e is n o t a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e p a s t, b u t a n e w b e g i n n i n g . M e r e c o n t i n u a t i o n c a n b e l e f t to t h e a n i m a l s , b u t i n a u g u r a t i o n is t h e p r e r o g a t i v e o f m a n , t h e o n e t h i n g h e c a n b o a s t o f t h a t l i f t s h i m a b o v e t h e b e a s ts . T h e r e is n o d o u b t t h a t t h e w o m a n o f t o d a y is d e e p l y c o n ­ c e r n e d w i t h t h i s p r o b l e m . S h e g iv e s e x p r e s s i o n t o o n e o f t h e c u ltu r a l te n d e n c ie s o f o u r tim e : th e u r g e to liv e a c o m p le te r life , a lo n g in g fo r m e a n in g a n d fu lf ilm e n t, a g r o w in g d is g u s t w i t h s e n s e le s s o n e - s id e d n e s s , w i t h u n c o n s c i o u s i n s t i n c t u a l i t y a n d b lin d c o n tin g e n c y . T h e p sy ch e o f th e m o d e r n E u r o p e a n h a s n o t f o r g o t t e n t h e le s s o n o f t h e l a s t w a r , h o w e v e r m u c h i t h a s b e e n b a n i s h e d f r o m h i s c o n s c io u s n e s s . W o m e n a r e i n c r e a s i n g l y a w a r e t h a t lo v e a l o n e c a n g i v e t h e m f u l l s t a t u r e , j u s t a s m e n a r e b e g i n n i n g to d i v i n e t h a t o n ly t h e s p i r i t c a n g iv e lif e its h ig h e s t m e a n in g . B o th s e e k a p s y c h ic r e la t io n s h i p , b e c a u s e lo v e n e e d s t h e s p i r i t , a n d t h e s p i r i t lo v e , f o r i t s c o m p l e t i o n . W o m a n n o w a d a y s f e e l s t h a t t h e r e is n o r e a l s e c u r i t y i n - m a r ­ r i a g e , f o r w h a t d o e s h e r h u s b a n d ’s f a i t h f u l n e s s m e a n w h e n s h e 130

knows th a t his feelings a n d th o u g h ts are ru n n in g a fte r o th ers and th a t he is m erely too c a lc u la tin g o r too cow ardly to follow them? W h a t does h e r ow n faith fu ln ess m ean w h en she know s th at she is sim ply usin g it to e x p lo it h e r legal rig h t o f posses­ sion, a n d w a rp in g h e r ow n soul? She has in tim a tio n s of a h ig h e r fidelity to th e s p irit a n d to a love bey o n d h u m a n w eakness a n d im perfection. P erh ap s she w ill yet discover th a t w h at seems like w eakness a n d im p e rfe c tio n , a p a in fu l d istu rb a n c e , o r an alarm in g d e v iatio n , m u st be in te rp re te d in accordance w ith its d u al n a tu re . T h e s e a re steps th a t lead do w n to th e low est h u ­ m an level a n d finally e n d in th e m orass of unconsciousness if the in d iv id u a l lets go o f his personal distinctiveness. B u t if he can h o ld o n to it, he w ill ex p erien ce fo r th e first tim e th e m e a n ­ ing of selfhood, p ro v id e d th a t he can sim u ltan eo u sly descend below h im self in to th e u n d iffe re n tia te d mass of h u m a n ity . W h at else can free h im from the in n e r iso latio n of his personal d ifferentiation ? A n d how else can he establish a psychic b rid g e to th e re st of m a n k in d ? T h e m an w ho stands o n h ig h a n d d is­ trib u tes his goods to th e p o o r is sep arated fro m m a n k in d by th e h eig h t of his ow n v irtu e , a n d th e m o re h e forgets h im self a n d sacrifices him self for o th ers th e m o re he is in w ard ly estran g ed from them . *7» T h e w o rd “ h u m a n ” sounds very b e a u tifu l, b u t p ro p e rly u n d ersto o d it does n o t m ean a n y th in g p a rtic u la rly b e a u tifu l, or virtu o u s, o r in te llig e n t, b u t ju s t a low average. T h is is th e step w hich Z a ra th u stra co u ld n o t take, th e step to th e “ U gliest M an,” w ho is real m an. O u r resistance to ta k in g th is step, a n d o u r fear of it, show how g re a t is th e a ttra c tio n a n d seductive pow er of o u r ow n dep th s. To c u t oneself off fro m th e m is n o so lu tio n ; it is a m ere sham , an essential m isu n d e rsta n d in g of th e ir m e a n in g a n d value. F or w here is a h e ig h t w ith o u t d e p th , a n d how can th e re be lig h t th a t throw s no shadow ? T h e r e is no good th a t is n o t opposed by evil. “ N o m a n can be red eem ed from a sin he has n o t c o m m itte d ,” says C arpocrates; a d e ep say­ ing for all w ho w ish to u n d e rstan d , a n d a g o ld en o p p o rtu n ity for all those w ho p re fe r to draw false conclusions. W h a t is dow n below is n o t ju s t a n excuse for m ore pleasu re, b u t so m eth in g we fear because it d em ands to play its p a rt in th e life of the m ore conscious a n d m ore com plete m an.

W hat I am saying here is n o t for the y ou n g—it is precisely w hat they ough t n ot to kn ow —but for the m ore m ature m an w hose consciousness has been w id en ed by experience o f life. N o m an can begin w ith the present; he m ust slow ly grow in to it, for there w ou ld be no present b u t for the past. A y o u n g person has n o t yet acquired a past, therefore he has n o present either. H e does n o t create culture, he m erely exists. It is the privilege and the task of m aturer people, w ho have passed the m erid ian o f life, to create culture. *73 T h e E uropean psyche has b een torn to shreds by the h ellish barbarism o f the war. W h ile m an turns his hand to rep airing the outer dam age, w om an—un con sciously as ever—sets ab ou t h ealin g the inn er w ounds, and for this she needs, as her m ost im portant instrum ent, a psychic relationship. B u t n o th in g ham pers this m ore than the exclusiveness o f the m edieval m ar­ riage, for it makes relation sh ip altogeth er superfluous. R ela­ tio n sh ip is possible on ly if there is a psychic distance betw een people, in the same way that m orality presupposes freedom . For this reason th e un con scious tendency of w om an aim s at lo o sen in g the marriage structure, b u t not at the destruction of marriage and the fam ily. T h a t w ou ld be n o t on ly im m oral b u t a thoroughly pathological m isuse o f her powers. *74 It w ould take volum es of case-m aterial to describe the in ­ num erable ways in w h ich this goal is achieved. It is the way o f w om an, as o f nature, to work indirectly, w ith o u t n am in g her goal. T o anything unsatisfactory she reacts purposively, w ith m oods, outbursts o f affects, o p in ion s, and actions that all have the same en d in view , and their apparent senselessness, viru ­ lence, and cold-blooded ruthlessness are in fin itely distressing to th e m an w h o is b lin d to Eros. *75 T h e ind irect m eth od of w om an is dangerous, for it can h o p e­ lessly com prom ise her aim . T h a t is w hy she longs for greater consciousness, w hich w ou ld en ab le her to nam e her goal and give it m eanin g, and thus escape the b lin d dynam ism o f nature. In any other age it w ou ld have been the prevailing relig io n that show ed her w here her ultim ate goal lay; b u t today relig io n leads back to the M iddle A ges, back to that soul-destroying u n ­ relatedness from w hich cam e all the fearful barbarities o f war. T oo m uch soul is reserved for G od, too little for m an. B ut G od *7*

132

W O M A N IN E U R O P E

him self c a n n o t flourish if m a n ’s soul is starved. T h e fe m in in e psyche responds to this h u n g er, for it is th e fu n c tio n of Eros to u n ite w h at Logos has sundered. T h e w om an o f today is faced w ith a tre m e n d o u s c u ltu ra l task—p erh ap s it w ill be th e daw n of a new era.

T H E M EANING OF PSYCHOLOGY FOR MODERN MAN 1 I have always fo u n d it u n co m m only difficult to m ake the m ean in g of psychology in tellig ib le to a w ider public. T h is d if­ ficulty dates back to th e tim e w h en I was a doctor in a m en tal hospital. Like every psychiatrist, I m ade th e astonishing dis­ covery th a t it is n o t we w ho h o ld co m p eten t opinions o n m e n ta l h ea lth a n d sickness, b u t th e p u b lic, w ho always know m uch b e tte r th a n we do. T h e y tell us th a t th e p a tie n t does n o t really clim b u p th e walls, th a t he know s w here he is, th a t h e rec­ ognizes his relatives, th a t he h asn ’t forgotten his nam e, that, consequently, he is n o t really ill b u t only a little depressed o r a little excited, an d th a t th e p sy chiatrist’s n o tio n th a t the m an is suffering from such a n d such an illness is en tirely incorrect. *77 T h is very com m on exp erien ce introduces us to th e field of psychology p ro p er, w h ere th in g s are even worse. Everyone thin k s th a t psychology is w hat he him self knows best—psychol­ ogy is always his psychology, w hich he alone knows, a n d at the tim e his psychology is everybody else’s psychology. In stin c­ tively h e supposes th a t his ow n psychic co n stitu tio n is th e gen­ eral one, a n d th a t everyone is essentially like everyone else, th a t is to say like him self. H u sb an d s suppose this of th e ir wives, wives suppose it of th e ir husbands, parents of th e ir ch ild ren , a n d c h ild re n of th e ir parents. It is as though everyone h ad the m ost d ire ct access to w hat is g o in g on inside him , was in tim ately acq u a in ted w ith it an d co m p ete n t to pass an o p in io n on it; as th o u g h his ow n psyche w ere a k in d of m aster-psyche w hich su ited all an d sundry, an d e n title d h im to suppose th a t his ow n situ atio n was th e g eneral ru le . P eople are p ro fo u n d ly aston-

*76

1 [O riginally a lecture delivered in Cologne an d Essen, F eb ru ary 1933. P ublished as "U eber Psychologie,” N eu e Schweizer R u n d sch a u (Zurich), I (1933), no. 1, 21-28, an d no. 2, 98—106. Revised an d ex p an ded as "D ie B edeutung der Psy­ chologie fu r d ie G egenw art,” W irklich keit der Seele (Zurich, 1934), pp. 32-67.— E d i t o r s .]

* 78

279

ished, o r even h o rrified , w h en this ru le q u ite obviously does n o t fit—w h en they discover th a t a n o th e r p erso n really is d ifferen t from them selves. G en erally speaking, they do n o t feel these psy­ chic differences as in any way curious, le t alo n e a ttra ctiv e, b u t as disagreeable failings th a t are h a rd to bear, o r as u n e n d u ra b le faults th a t have to be co n d em n ed . T h e p a in fu lly ob v io u s d if­ ference seems lik e a c o n tra v e n tio n o f th e n a tu ra l o rd e r, like a shocking m istake th a t m u st be re m e d ie d as speedily as possible, o r a m isd e m ea n o u r th a t calls for co n d ig n p u n ish m e n t. As you know , th e re actu ally a re w idely accep ted psycholog­ ical theories w hich sta rt from th e a ssu m p tio n th a t th e h u m a n psyche is th e sam e everyw here a n d can th e re fo re be e x p lain ed in the sam e way regardless of circum stances. T h e a p p a llin g m o n o to n y presu p p o sed by these theories, how ever, is c o n tra ­ d icted by th e fact th a t in d iv id u a l psychic differences do exist an d are cap ab le of alm ost in fin ite v a ria tio n . In a d d itio n to this, one of th e theo ries ex p lain s the w orld of psychic p h e n o m en a m ainly in term s o f th e sexual in stin c t, a n d th e o th e r in term s of th e p ow er drive. T h e re su lt of this inconsistency is th a t b o th theories clin g all th e m ore rig id ly to th e ir p rin cip les an d show clear tendencies to set them selves u p as th e o n e a n d o n ly source of salvation. Each denies th e o th e r, a n d one asks oneself in v ain w hich o f th e m is rig h t. B u t a lth o u g h th e a d h e re n ts of b o th views try th e ir u tm o st to ig n o re each o th e r’s existence, these tactics do n o th in g to resolve th e c o n tra d ictio n . A n d yet th e answ er to th e rid d le is a b su rd ly sim ple. It a m o u n ts to this: b o th o f th em are rig h t, in so far as each th eo ry describes a psy­ chology w hich resem bles th a t of its ad h eren ts. W e can well say w ith G o eth e th a t it “ m atches th e s p irit th a t it c o m p re h en d s.” 2 T u r n in g back to o u r them e, le t us c o n sid er m o re closely th e w ell-nigh in e ra d ica b le p re ju d ic e of sim p le-m in d ed persons th a t everybody is exactly th e sam e as th em . A lth o u g h it is tru e in general th a t psychic differences are a d m itte d as a th eo retical possibility, in p ractice one always forgets th a t th e o th e r p erson is d ifferen t from oneself, th a t h e th in k s differently, feels d if­ ferently, sees differently, a n d w ants q u ite d ifferen t th in g s. E ven scientific theories, as we have seen, sta rt fro m th e a ssu m p tio n th a t th e shoe pinches everyone in th e sam e place. Q u ite a p a rt 2 Faust, Part O ne, tran s. by W ayne, p. 48.

from this e n te rta in in g dom estic q u a rre l am ong psychologists, th ere are o th e r eg alitarian assum ptions of a social a n d political n a tu re w hich are m uch m ore serious, because they forget th e existence of th e in d iv id u al psyche altogether. s8o In stead of vexing m yself to n o p u rp o se over such n arro w ­ m in d e d an d short-sighted views, I began to w on d er why they sho u ld exist at all, a n d I trie d to discover w hat the reasons m ig h t be. T h is in q u iry led m e to study th e psychology of p rim i­ tive peoples. I h a d long b een stru ck by the fact th a t th ere is a certain naivetd a n d childlikeness a b o u t those w ho are -most p reju d ic e d in favour of psychic u n ifo rm ity . I n p rim itiv e society one does in fact find th a t this assum ption extends n o t only to h u m a n beings, b u t to all th e objects of n a tu re , th e anim als, plan ts, rivers, m o u n tain s, an d so on. T h e y all have som ething of m a n ’s psychology in them , even trees a n d stones can speak. A n d ju st as th ere are certain h u m a n beings w ho obviously do n o t conform to th e general ru le a n d are h o n o u re d as m agicians, w itches, chiefs, a n d m edicine-m en, so am ong th e anim als th ere are doctor-coyotes, doctor-birds, werewolves, an d th e like, whose honorific title is co n ferred w h en ev er a n an im al behaves in any way o u t of the o rd in a ry a n d upsets the tacit assum ption of u n i­ form ity. T h is p reju d ic e is evidently a vestige—b u t a very p o ten t o n e—of a p rim itiv e fram e of m in d w hich is based essentially on a n insufficiently d ifferen tiated consciousness. In d iv id u a l con­ sciousness o r ego-consciousness is a late p ro d u c t of m a n ’s d e­ velopm ent. Its p rim itiv e form is a m ere group-consciousness, a n d am ong th e p rim itiv e societies th a t still exist today this is o fte n so poorly developed th a t m any tribes d o n o t even give them selves a nam e th a t w o u ld d istin g u ish th em from o th e r trib es. F or instance, in East A frica I cam e across a trib e w ho sim ply called them selves “ th e p eople who are th e re .” T h is p rim itiv e group-consciousness goes on liv in g in o u r own fam ily­ consciousness, a n d we often find th at m em bers of a fam ily can give no acco u n t of them selves o th e r th a n th a t they are called by such an d such a n am e—w hich seems en tirely satisfactory to the person concerned. B u t a group-consciousness in w hich individuals are in te r­ changeable is still n o t the lowest level of consciousness, for it already shows traces of d ifferen tiatio n . A t th e lowest a n d m ost p rim itiv e level we w o uld find a so rt of generalized or cosmic 136

consciousness, w ith co m p lete unconsciousness of th e su b ject. O n this level th e re are only events, b u t n o a ctin g persons. *8* O u r a ssu m p tio n th a t w h a t pleases m e m u st necessarily please everybody else is th e re fo re a n obvious relic fro m th a t p rim o rd ia l n ig h t of consciousness w here th ere was n o p e r­ cep tib le difference betw een I a n d Y ou, a n d w h ere everyone th o u g h t, felt, a n d acted in the sam e way. B u t if a n y th in g h a p ­ p en ed w hich show ed th a t som ebody was n o t of like m in d , th e re was a n im m e d ia te d istu rb an ce. N o th in g arouses so m u ch pan ic am ong p rim itiv e s as so m eth in g o u t of th e o rd in a ry ; it is at once suspected of b e in g d an g ero u s a n d hostile. T h is p rim itiv e reac­ tio n survives in us too: how p ro m p t w e are to take offence w h en som ebody does n o t sh are o u r convictions! W e are in su lte d w h en som ebody finds o u r idea of beau ty detestab le. W e still p ersecu te anyone w ho th in k s d ifferently fro m ourselves, we still try to force o u r o p in io n s o n others, to co n v ert p o o r h eath en s in o rd e r to save th e m fro m th e h e ll th a t in d u b ita b ly lies in w ait fo r them , an d we are a ll abysm ally a fra id o f stan d in g a lo n e w ith o u r beliefs. *83 T h e psychic e q u a lity of a ll m e n is a n u n sp o k en a ssu m p tio n d eriv in g fro m th e in d iv id u a l’s o rig in a l unconsciousness of h im ­ self. I n th a t far-off w o rld th e re was n o in d iv id u a l consciousness, b u t only a collective psyche from w hich g rad u ally a n in d iv id u a l consciousness em erg ed on th e h ig h e r levels of d ev elo p m en t. T h e in dispensable c o n d itio n fo r th e existence of a n in d iv id u a l co n ­ sciousness is its difference from o th e r consciousnesses. O n e could lik e n th e process o f conscious d e v elo p m en t to a ro ck et th a t rises u p from th e darkness a n d dissolves in a show er of m u ltic o lo u re d stars. *84 Psychology as a n e m p irical science is of very re c e n t o rig in . It is n o t yet fifty years old, a n d is th e re fo re still in its sw addlingclothes. T h e prem ise of eq u ality p re v e n ted it fro m b e in g b o rn earlier. F ro m this we can see how y o u n g any k in d of differ­ e n tia te d consciousness is. I t has ju s t c re p t o u t of its lo n g sleep, slowly a n d clum sily ta k in g cognizance of its ow n existence. I t w ould be a d e lu sio n to im ag in e th a t we have a tta in e d any­ th in g like a h ig h level of consciousness. O u r present-day co n ­ sciousness is a m ere c h ild th a t is ju s t b e g in n in g to say “ I .” *85 I t was o n e o f th e greatest experiences of m y life to discover how enorm ously d ifferen t p e o p le ’s psyches are. If th e collective

«86

eq uality of th e psyche w ere n o t a prim ordial fact, th e OTigin and m atrix o f all in d ividu al psyches, it w ou ld be a gigantic illu ­ sion. B ut despite our in d ivid u al consciousness it u n q u estio n ­ ably con tin u es to exist as the collective unconscious—the sea upon w hich the ego rides like a ship. For this reason also, n oth ­ in g of the prim ordial w orld o f the psyche has ever been lost. Just as the sea stretches its broad tongues betw een the c o n ti­ nents and laps them round lik e islands, so our origin al u n co n ­ sciousness presses round our in d ivid u al consciousness. In the catastrophe o f m ental disease the storm -tide o f the sea surges over the island and swallow s it back in to the depths. In n eurotic disturbances there is at least a bu rstin g o f dikes, and th e fru it­ fu l low lands are laid waste by flood. N eurotics are a ll shoredw ellers—they are the m ost exposed to the dangers o f the sea. So-called norm al people live inland, on higher, drier ground, near placid lakes and streams. N o flood how ever high reaches them , and the circum am bient sea is so far away that they even deny its existence. Indeed, a person can be so id entified w ith his ego that he loses the com m on bond o f hum anity and cuts him self off from all others. As nob ody wants to be en tirely lik e everybody else, this is q u ite a com m on occurrence. For prim i­ tive egoism , how ever, the standing ru le is that it is n ever “I ” w h o m ust change, bu t always the oth er fellow . Individual consciousness is surrounded by the treacherous sea o f the un conscious. T h is consciousness o f ours has the appearance of bein g stable and reliable, b u t in Teality it is a fragile th in g and rests on very insecure foundations. O ften no m ore than a strong em otion is need ed to upset the sensitive bal­ ance o f consciousness. O ur turns of speech are an in d ica tio n of this. W e say that a person was “beside h im self” w ith rage, he “forgot h im self com p letely,” on e “c o u ld n ’t recognize h im ,” “ the devil had got in to h im ,” etc. Som ething m akes you “ju m p o u t of your skin,” “drives you m ad,” so that you “no longer know w hat you are d o in g .” A ll these fam iliar phrases show how easily our ego-consciousness is disrupted by affects. T h e se dis­ turbances do not show them selves on ly in acute form; often they are chronic and can bring abou t a lasting change o f con­ sciousness. As a result o f som e psychic upheaval w h ole tracts o f our b ein g can p lu nge back in to the unconscious and vanish from the surface for years and decades. P erm anent changes o f 138

character are n o t uncom m on. W e th erefo re say, q u ite correctly, th a t a f te r some such experience a person was a “changed m an .” T hese things h a p p en n o t only to people w ith a b ad h ered ity or to neurotics, b u t to norm al people as well. D isturbances caused by affects are know n technically as p h e n o m e n a o f d isso cia tio n , and are indicative of a psychic split. In every psychic conflict we can discern a sp lit of this kin d , w hich m ay go so far as to th re a ten the shattered stru c tu re of consciousness w ith com plete disintegration. *87 B u t even the in la n d dw ellers, the in h a b ita n ts of the n o rm al w orld w ho forgot the sea, do n o t live on firm g ro u n d . T h e soil is so friable th a t at any m o m en t th e sea can ru sh in th ro u g h c o n tin en tal fissures an d m aroon them . P rim itiv e m an knows this danger n o t only from the life of his trib e b u t from his own psychology. T h e m ost im p o rta n t of these “perils of the soul,” as they are technically called, are loss of soul an d possession. B oth are p h en o m en a of dissociation. In the first case, he w ill say th at a soul has w andered away from him , an d in th e second, th a t a strange soul has taken u p its abode in him , generally in some u npleasant form . T h is way of p u ttin g it may so u n d odd, b u t it describes exactly th e sym ptom s w hich today we call p h en o m en a of dissociation o r schizoid states. T h e y are n o t by any m eans purely pathological sym ptom s, for they are fo u n d ju st as m uch in norm al people. T h e y may take th e form of fluctuations in the general feeling of w ell-being, irra tio n a l changes of m ood, u n p red ictab le affects, a sudden distaste for everything, psychic inertia, an d so on. Even th e schizoid p h en o m en a th a t corre­ spond to p rim itiv e possession can be observed in n orm al peo­ ple. T hey, too, are n o t im m u n e to the d em on of passion; they, too, are liable to possession by an in fa tu a tio n , a vice, o r a o n e­ sided conviction; an d these are all things th a t d ig a deep grave betw een them an d those they ho ld m ost dear, an d create an aching split in th e ir ow n psyche. i88 P rim itive m an feels the sp littin g of the psyche as som ething unseem ly an d m orbid, ju s t as we do. O nly, we call it a conflict, nervousness, o r a m ental breakdow n. N o t for n o th in g did the Bible story place the u n b ro k e n harm ony of p lan t, an im al, m an, and G od, sym bolized as Paradise, at th e very b e g in n in g of all psychic developm ent, an d declare th a t th e first daw ning of consciousness—“Ye shall be as gods, know ing good an d evil”—

was a fatal sin. T o th e naive m in d it m ust in d eed seem a sin to sh atte r th e d ivine u n ity of consciousness th a t ru le d th e p rim al n ig h t. It was th e L u ciferian rev o lt of th e in d iv id u a l against th e O ne. I t was a hostile act of disharm ony against harm ony, a sep aratio n from the fusion of all w ith all. T h e re fo re G od cursed th e serp en t a n d said: “I w ill p u t en m ity betw een thee an d the w om an, an d betw een thy seed an d h e r seed; it shall bru ise thy head, an d th o u sh alt bru ise his h eel.” *89 A n d yet th e a tta in m e n t of consciousness was the m ost p re­ cious fru it of th e tree of know ledge, th e m agical w eapon w hich gave m an victory over th e earth , a n d w hich we h o p e w ill give him a still g re ate r victory over him self. *9° T h e fact th a t in d iv id u al consciousness m eans sep aratio n a n d op p o sitio n is som eth in g th a t m an has experienced countless tim es in his long history. A n d ju st as for the in d iv id u al a tim e of dissociation is a tim e for sickness, so it is in th e life of nations. W e can hardly deny th a t ou rs is a tim e of dissociation a n d sick­ ness. T h e political an d social conditions, th e frag m en tatio n of relig io n an d philosophy, th e c o n te n d in g schools of m o d ern a rt an d m o d ern psychology all have one m ean in g in this respect. A n d does anyone w ho is en d o w ed w ith th e slightest sense of resp o n sib ility feel any satisfaction a t this tu rn of events? If we are honest, we m u st ad m it th a t n o one feels q u ite com fortable in th e present-day w orld; indeed, it becom es increasingly u n ­ com fortable. T h e w o rd “crisis,” so o ften heard, is a m edical expression w hich always tells us th a t the sickness has reached a dangerous clim ax. S91 W h en m an becam e conscious, th e germ of th e sickness of dissociation was p lan ted in his soul, for consciousness is a t once th e highest good a n d th e greatest evil. I t is difficult to estim ate th e sickness of th e age in w hich we live. B u t if we glance back at th e clinical history of m a n k in d , we shall find earlier b outs of sickness w hich are easier to survey. O ne of th e w orst attacks was th e m alaise th a t spread th ro u g h the R o m an w orld in the first cen tu ries afte r C hrist. T h e dissociation show ed itself in an u n ex am p led break d o w n of th e political a n d social conditions, in religious an d philosophical dissension, a n d in a deplorable declin e of th e arts a n d sciences. If we red u ced h u m a n ity as it th en was to a single in d iv id u al, we w ould see before us a highly differen tiated personality w ho, a fte r m astering his en v iro n m e n t 140

w ith su b lim e self-assurance, sp lit h im self u p in th e p u rs u it of his sep arate occu p atio n s a n d interests, fo rg ettin g his ow n o rig in s an d tra d itio n s, a n d even losing all m em o ry of his fo rm er self, so th a t he seem ed to be now one th in g a n d now a n o th e r, an d thus fell in to a hopeless conflict w ith him self. In th e e n d th e conflict led to such a state of e n fe e b le m e n t th a t th e w o rld he had c o n q u e re d b ro k e in like a d ev astatin g flood a n d co m p leted th e process o f d e stru ctio n . *9* A fte r lo n g years sp e n t in th e in v e stig atio n o f th e psyche, th ere g rad u ally took shape in m e, as it h a d in the m in d s of o th e r investigators, the fu n d a m e n ta l ax io m th a t a psychic p h e n o m e ­ n o n sh o u ld n ev er b e looked a t from o n e side only, b u t fro m th e o th e r side as well. E x p e rie n c e has show n th a t e v ery th in g has a t least tw o sides, a n d som etim es several m ore. D isra eli’s m ax im th a t n o t too m u c h im p o rtan c e sh o u ld be a tta c h e d to im p o rta n t things, a n d th a t u n im p o rta n t th ings are n o t so u n im p o rta n t as they seem , is a n o th e r fo rm u la tio n of th e sam e tru th . A th ird version w o u ld be th e hypothesis th a t every psychic p h e n o m e n o n is com pensated by its opposite, in a g re em e n t w ith th e p ro v erb , “ Les extrem es se to u c h e n t,” or, “T h e re is n o m isfo rtu n e so g reat th a t n o good m ay com e of it.” *93 T h u s , th e sickness of dissociation in o u r w o rld is a t th e sam e tim e a process o f recovery, o r ra th e r, th e clim ax of a p e rio d of p regnancy w hich h erald s th e throes of b irth . A tim e of dissocia­ tio n such as p re v a iled d u rin g the R o m a n E m p ire is sim u lta n e ­ ously a n age of re b irth . N o t w ith o u t reason d o we d ate o u r era from th e age of A ugustus, for th a t epoch saw th e b irth of the sym bolical figure of C hrist, w ho was in v o k ed by th e early C h ris­ tians as th e Fish, th e R u le r of th e aeon of Pisces w hich h a d ju s t b e g u n .8 H e becam e th e ru lin g s p irit of th e n e x t tw o th o u san d years. L ike th e teach er o f w isdom in B ab y lo n ian legend, O annes, h e rose u p from th e sea, from th e p rim ev al darkness, a n d b ro u g h t a w o rld -p erio d to a n en d . I t is tru e th a t he said, “ I am com e n o t to b rin g peace b u t a sw ord.” B u t th a t w hich b rin g s d iv isio n u ltim a te ly creates u n io n . T h e re fo re his teach in g was o n e of allu n itin g love. *94 O u r d istance in tim e p u ts us in th e fa v o u ra b le p o sitio n of b e in g ab le to see these h istorical events q u ite clearly. H a d we 8 [Cf. A ion ,

p a s s i m . — E d i t o r s .]

lived in those days we w o u ld p ro b ab ly have been am ong the m any w ho overlooked them . T h e G ospel, th e joyful tidings, w ere know n only to the h u m b le few; o n th e surface everything was politics, econom ic questions, a n d sport. R elig io n a n d p h i­ losophy tried to assim ilate th e sp iritu a l riches th a t p o u red in to the R o m an w orld from the new ly c o n q u ered East. Few no ticed the g rain of m ustard-seed th a t was d estined to grow in to a g reat tree. 295 In classical C hinese p h ilosophy th ere are tw o co n trary p r in ­ ciples, th e b rig h t yang a n d th e d ark yin . O f these it is said th a t always w hen one p rin c ip le reaches the h eig h t of its pow er, the co u n ter-p rin cip le is s tirrin g w ith in it like a germ . T h is is a n ­ o th er, p a rtic u la rly g rap h ic fo rm u latio n of the psychological law of com pensation by an in n e r opposite. W h en ev er a civilization reaches its highest p o in t, sooner o r la te r a p erio d of decay sets in. B u t th e a p p a ren tly m eaningless a n d hopeless collapse in to a dis­ o rd e r w ith o u t aim o r purpose, w hich fills th e onlooker w ith disgust an d despair, nevertheless co ntains w ith in its darkness the germ of a new light. a96 B u t le t us go back for a m o m e n t to o u r e arlier a tte m p t to co n stru ct a single in d iv id u al from the p erio d of classical decay. I trie d to show you how he d isin teg rated psychologically, how in a disastrous fit of weakness he lost co n tro l of his en v iro n m en t, an d finally succum bed to th e forces of destru ctio n . L e t us su p ­ pose th a t this m an cam e to m e for a consultation. I w o u ld m ake th e follow ing diagnosis: “You are suffering from o v erstrain as a resu lt of y o u r n u m ero u s activities a n d boundless extraversion. In the pro fu sio n an d com plexity of y o u r business, personal, a n d h u m a n obligations you have lost y o u r head. Y ou are a k in d of Iv ar K reuger,4 w ho is a typical rep resen tativ e of the m odern E u ro p ean sp irit. You m ust realize, my d ear Sir, th a t you are Tapidly going to th e dogs.” 897 T h is la tte r realizatio n w o u ld be p artic u la rly im p o rta n t for him , because p atien ts have in any case a pern icio u s tendency to go on m u d d lin g th ro u g h in th e same old way, even th o u g h it has long since proved ineffective, a n d to m ake th e ir situ a tio n only worse. W aitin g is useless. T h e re fo re th e q u estio n im m ediately arises: “W h a t is to be done?” * [S w e d is h

f in a n c ie r (1 8 8 0 -1 9 3 2 ), k n o w n

as “T h e

M a tc h

K in g ,” w h o s e

c a t e d p e c u l a t i o n s l e d t o h i s f i n a n c i a l c o l l a p s e a n d s u i c i d e . —E d it o r s .]

c o m p li­

298

O u r p a tie n t is a n in te llig e n t m an. H e has tried all th e p a te n t m edicines, b o th good an d bad, every k in d of diet, a n d all the bits of advice given h im by all the clever people. W e m u st th e re ­ fore p ro ceed w ith h im as w ith T i ll E ulenspiegel, w ho always laughed w hen the way w en t u p h ill, a n d w ep t w hen it w en t dow n, in shocking defiance of so u n d com m onsense. B u t h id d e n b e ­ n e ath his fool’s g a rm e n t was a wise m an , w ho w hen going u p h ill was re jo ic in g in th e co m in g descent. 299 W e m u st d ire c t o u r p a tie n t’s a tte n tio n to th e place w here the germ o f u n ity is g ro w in g w ith in h im , th e place of creative b irth , w hich is th e d eep est cause of all th e rifts a n d schisms o n the surface. A civilization does n o t decay, it regenerates. In the early cen tu ries of o u r era a m an of d isc e rn m e n t co u ld have cried o u t w ith u n sh ak ab le certain ty a m id th e p o litical in trig u e an d w ild sp ecu latio n of th e C aesar-w orshipping, circus-besotted R o m an w orld: “ T h e germ of th e co m in g era has even now b een b o rn in th e darkness, b e h in d all this aim less co n fu sio n ; th e seed of the T r e e th a t w ill overshadow the n atio n s from T h u le in the far W est to P oland, fro m th e m o u n ta in s of th e N o rth to Sicily, a n d u n ite th e m in one belief, one c u ltu re , an d one lan g u ag e.” 3°° T h a t is th e psychological law. M y p a tie n t, in all p ro b a b ility , w ill n o t believe a w ord o f it. A t the very least he w ill w an t to have e x p erien ced these th ings for him self. A n d h ere o u r diffi­ culties begin, fo r th e co m p en satio n always m akes its ap p ea ra n ce ju s t w here one w o u ld least expect it, a n d w here, o bjectively co n ­ sidered, it seems least plau sib le. L e t us now suppose th a t o u r p a tie n t is n o t th e p ale ab strac tio n of a long-dead civilization, b u t a flesh-and-blood m an o f o u r ow n day, w ho has th e m isfo rtu n e to be a typical re p re se n ta tiv e of o u r m o d e rn E u ro p e a n c u ltu re . W e shall th e n find th a t o u r com p en satio n th eo ry m eans n o th in g to him . H e suffers m ost o f all from th e disease of k n o w in g every­ th in g b e tte r; th e re is n o th in g th a t he c a n n o t classify a n d p u t in the c o rre ct p ig eonhole. As to his psyche, it is essentially his own in v e n tio n , his ow n w ill, a n d it obeys his reaso n exclusively; a n d if it sh o u ld h a p p e n th a t it does n o t d o so, if he sh o u ld n e v er­ theless have psychic sym ptom s, such as anxiety-states, obsessional ideas, a n d so on, th e n it is a clin ically id en tifiab le disease w ith a th o ro u g h ly plau sib le, scientific nam e. O f th e psyche as a n o rig ­ in al ex p erien ce w hich c a n n o t be re d u c e d to a n y th in g else he has n o know ledge a t all a n d does n o t know w h a t I am ta lk in g a b o u t,

b u t he th inks he has u n d ersto o d it perfectly a n d even w rites articles an d books in w hich h e bem oans the evils of “psycho­ logism .” 301 T h is k in d of m en tality , b a rric ad in g itself b e h in d a thick w all of books, new spapers, opin io n s, social in stitu tio n s, an d p ro ­ fessional prejudices, can n o t b e arg u ed w ith. N o th in g can break th ro u g h its defences, least of all th a t little germ of the new w hich w ould m ake him a t one w ith th e w o rld a n d him self. It is so sm all a n d rid icu lo u s th a t for m odesty’s sake it w o u ld ra th e r give u p the ghost a t once. W here, th en , m ust we lead o u r p a tie n t in o rd er to give him at least a g lim m er of an in k lin g of som ething different, so m ething th a t w o uld co u n terb alan ce th e everyday w orld he knows only too well? W e m u st guide him , by devious ways a t first, to a dark, rid icu lo u sly insignificant, q u ite u n im ­ p o rta n t co rn er of his psyche, follow ing a long-disused p ath to the longest-know n illusion, w hich as all the w o rld knows is n o th in g b u t . . . T h a t co rn e r of th e psyche is the dream, w hich is n o th ­ ing b u t a fleeting, grotesque p h a n to m of the n ig h t, a n d th e p ath is the u n d e rsta n d in g of dream s. 302 W ith Faustian in d ig n a tio n m y p a tie n t w ill cry o u t: T h is w itch ’s quackery disgusts m y sou ll Is this you r p rom ise th en , that I b e h e a led By crooked counsel in this crazy h ole, In truth by som e d ecrep it d am e revealed? C an n ot you brew an ich or o f your own? 8

T o w hich I shall reply: “ H a v e n ’t you tried one rem edy after another? H av en ’t you seen for yourself th a t all y o u r efforts have only led you ro u n d in a circle, back to th e confusion of y o u r p re sen t life? So w here w ill you get th a t o th er p o in t of view from , if it can n o t be fo u n d anyw here in y our w orld?” 304 H ere M ephistopheles m u rm u rs approvingly, " T h a t’s w here the w itch comes in ,” thus g iving his ow n devilish tw ist to N a­ tu re ’s secret an d p erv ertin g the tru th th at the d ream is a n in n e r vision, “m ysterious still in o p en lig h t of day.” T h e d ream is a little h id d en d o o r in the in n erm o st a n d m ost secret recesses of the soul, o p en in g in to th a t cosmic n ig h t w hich was psyche long

3°3

8 Faust, Part O ne, trans. by W ayne, p p . 1 iof.

before th e re was any ego-consciousness, a n d w h ich w ill re m a in psyche n o m a tte r how far o u r ego-consciousness extends. F o r all ego-consciousness is isolated; because it separates a n d d is­ crim in ates, it know s only p a rtic u la rs, a n d it sees o n ly those th a t can be re la te d to th e ego. Its essence is lim ita tio n , even th o u g h it reach to th e fa rth e st n e b u la e am o n g th e stars. A ll conscious­ ness separates; b u t in dream s we p u t on th e likeness of th a t m o re universal, tru e r, m o re e te rn a l m a n d w ellin g in th e darkness of p rim o rd ia l n ig h t. T h e r e he is still th e w hole, a n d the w hole is in him , in d istin g u ish a b le from n a tu re a n d b are of all egohood. j°5 I t is fro m these a ll-u n itin g d ep th s th a t th e d re a m arises, be it n ev er so childish, grotesque, a n d im m o ral. So flow erlike is it in its c a n d o u r a n d veracity th a t it m akes us b lu sh fo r th e d eceit­ fulness of o u r lives. N o w o n d er th a t in all the a n c ie n t civiliza­ tions a n im pressive d re a m was a cc o u n te d a message fro m the godsl I t re m a in e d for th e ra tio n a lism of o u r age to e x p la in the d ream as the re m n a n ts left over fro m the day, as th e cru m b s th a t fell in to th e tw ilit w o rld from th e rich ly la d en tab le of o u r consciousness. T h e s e d a rk d ep th s a re th e n n o th in g b u t a n em p ty sack, c o n ta in in g n o m o re th a n w h at falls in to it fro m above. W h y do we always fo rg et th a t th e re is n o th in g m ajestic o r b e a u ­ tifu l in th e w ide d o m a in o f h u m a n c u ltu re th a t d id n o t grow o rig in ally fro m a lucky idea? W h a t w o u ld becom e of m a n k in d if nobody h a d lucky ideas any m ore? I t w o u ld be far tr u e r to say th a t o u r consciousness is th a t sack, w hich has n o th in g in it except w h a t chances to fall in to it. W e n e v er a p p re cia te how d e p e n d e n t we a re o n lucky ideas—u n til we find to o u r distress th a t they w ill n o t com e. A d re a m is n o th in g b u t a lucky idea th a t com es to us from th e dark, all-u n ify in g w o rld of the psyche. W h a t w o u ld be m o re n a tu ra l, w hen we have lost ourselves am id the endless p a rtic u la rs an d isolated details of th e w o rld ’s surface, th a n to knock a t th e d o o r of dream s a n d in q u ire of th e m the b earings w hich w o u ld b rin g us closer to th e basic facts of h u m a n existence? 3°6 H e re we e n c o u n te r th e o b stin a te p re ju d ic e th a t dream s are so m u ch fro th , they are n o t real, they lie, they are m ere wishfulfilm ents. A ll this is b u t an excuse n o t to take dream s seri­ ously, fo r th a t w o u ld be u n co m fo rtab le. O u r in te lle c tu a l hybris of consciousness loves iso lation d esp ite all its inconveniences, a n d for this reason p eo p le w ill do a n y th in g ra th e r th a n a d m it

th a t dream s are real an d speak th e tru th . T h e re are some saints w ho had very ru d e dream s. W h ere w ould th eir saintliness be, the very th in g th a t exalts th em above the vulgar rab b le, if the obscenity of a dream were a real tru th ? B ut it is ju st the m ost sq u alid dream s th a t em phasize o u r blood-kinship w ith the rest of m an k in d , an d m ost effectively d am p dow n th e arrogance b o rn of an atro p h y of th e instincts. Even if the w hole w o rld w ere to fall to pieces, the u n ity of the psyche w ould never b e shattered. A nd th e w ider an d m ore n u m ero u s the fissures o n the surface, the m ore this u n ity is stren g th en ed in the depths. 3°7 N o one, of course, w ho has n o t experienced it him self w ill be convinced th a t th ere could be any in d e p e n d e n t psychic activity outside consciousness, an d certainly n o t an activity th at takes place n o t only in m e b u t sim ultaneously in all m en. B ut w hen we com pare the psychology of m odern a rt w ith th e find­ ings of psychological research, a n d this again w ith the products of m ythology an d philosophy, we shall discover irrefu tab le proofs of the existence of this collective, unconscious factor. So8 O u r p atie n t, however, is so accustom ed to tre a t his psyche as som ething he has u n d e r his co n tro l th a t he w ill re to rt th a t he has never yet observed an y th in g objective a b o u t his psychic processes. T h e y are, on the contrary, the m ost subjective things one can possibly im agine. T o this I rejo in : “T h e n you can m ake y o u r anxiety-states a n d y o u r obsessional ideas disappear a t once. T h e b ad m oods you are rid d le d w ith w ill be n o m ore. You have only to speak the m agic w ord.” 3°9 N atu rally , in his m o d ern na'ivet^, he has en tirely failed to notice th a t he is as m uch possessed by his pathological states as any w itch o r w itch -h u n ter in the d arkest M iddle Ages. I t is m erely a difference of nam e. In those days they spoke of the devil, today we call it a neurosis. B u t it comes to the same thing, to the same age-old experience: so m eth in g objectively psychic a n d strange to us, n o t u n d e r o u r co n tro l, is fixedly opposed to the sovereignty of o u r w ill. W e are in n o b e tte r case th a n the Proktoph an tasm ist in Faust, w hen he exclaim ed: PreposterousI You still intend to stay? Vanish at once, you’ve been explained away! By rules this devil’s crew is nothing daunted: For all our wisdom, Tegel still is haunted,* 6 Cf. W ayne trans., p. 178.

310

If o u r p a tie n t can su b m it to th e logic of this a rg u m e n t, m u ch w ill have b een gained. T h e way to ex p erien ce of the psyche is open. B u t soon one com es to a n o th e r p re ju d ic e th a t blocks fu r­ th e r progress. “ G ra n te d ,” he w ill say, “ th a t I am e x p erien c in g a psychic force th a t thw arts my w ill, an objective-psychic factor, if you like to call it th a t. B u t it still rem ain s so m eth in g p u re ly psychological, vague, u n re lia b le , an d of n o im p o rtan ce in the practical affairs o f life.” 311 I t is am azing how peo p le g et c au g h t in words. T h e y always im agine th a t the n am e p ostulates the th in g —ju s t as if we w ere d o in g th e devil a serious w rong w hen we call h im a neurosis! T h is to u ch in g ly c h ild lik e tra it is a n o th e r re m n a n t left over from the year 1, w h en m a n k in d still o p e ra ted w ith m agical w ords. B u t w hat is b e h in d th e devil o r the neurosis does n o t b o th e r a b o u t the nam e we give it. N a tu ra lly we do n o t know w h at th e psyche is. W e speak of the “ unconscious” m erely because we are n o t conscious of w h a t it is in reality. W e know this as little as the physicist know s w h at m a tte r is. H e sim ply has theories a b o u t it, c ertain views, p ic tu rin g it now in one way an d now in a n o th er. For a tim e th e p ic tu re fits, th e n a new discovery b rin g s q u ite a d ifferen t view. B u t th a t has n o effect o n m a tte r. O r is th e reality of m a tte r in som e way dim inished? 3 1* W e sim ply do n o t know w h at we are d e alin g w ith w h en we e n c o u n te r this stran g e a n d d is tu rb in g facto r w hich we call the unconscious o r th e o bjective psyche. W ith som e sem b lan ce of ju stification, it has b een defined as th e sexual in s tin c t o r the p ow er drive. B u t this does n o th in g like ju stice to its real signifi­ cance. W h a t is b e h in d these instincts, w hich are certain ly n o t the be-all a n d end-all of existence, b u t m erely re p re se n t th e lim its of o u r u n d e rstan d in g ? I n this field every in te rp re ta tio n has free play. Y ou can also take th e unconscious as a m a n ifestatio n of the life-instinct, a n d e q u a te the force w hich creates an d sustains life w ith B ergson’s elan v ita l, o r even w ith his duree creatrice. A n ­ o th e r p a ra llel w o u ld be S c h o p e n h au e r’s W ill. I know p eople w ho feel th a t th e stran g e pow er in th e ir ow n psyche is so m eth in g divine, for th e very sim ple reason th a t it has given th em an u n d e rsta n d in g of w h at is m e a n t by relig io u s experience. S1S I a d m it th a t I fully u n d e rsta n d th e d isa p p o in tm e n t of my p a tie n t a n d of my p u b lic w hen I p o in t to dream s as a source of in fo rm a tio n in th e s p iritu a l co n fu sio n of o u r

m o d ern w orld. N o th in g is m ore n a tu ra l th an th a t such a p ara­ doxical gesture should strike one as com pletely absurd. W h a t can a dream do, this u tte rly subjective an d n ugatory thing, in a w orld b rim fu l of overpow ering realities? R ealities m u st be co u n tered w ith other, equally p alp ab le realities, a n d n o t w ith dream s, which m erely d istu rb o u r sleep or p u t us in a bad m ood the n e x t day. You can n o t b u ild a house w ith dream s, o r pay taxes, o r w in battles, o r overcom e the w orld crisis. T h e re fo re m y p atien t, like all o th er sensible people, will w an t m e to tell h im w h at can be done in this insufferable situ atio n , a n d w ith a p p ro p riate , com m on-sense m ethods. T h e only snag is th a t all th e m ethods th a t seem a p p ro p ria te have already been trie d o u t w ith n o success w hatever, o r consist of w ishful fantasies th a t are im possible in practice. T h ese m ethods w ere all chosen w ith a view to m eetin g the ex isting situ atio n . F o r instance, w hen som e­ one gets his business in to a mess, he n atu rally considers how he can set it on its feet again, a n d he em ploys all the rem edies th a t are designed to restore his lan g u ish in g business to h ealth . B u t w h at happens w hen all these rem edies have been tried , w hen, co n trary to all reasonable expectations, the situ atio n only slith ­ ers from bad to worse? In th a t case he w ill be com pelled to give u p the use of these so-called reasonable m ethods as speedily as possible. 3*4 My p atien t, a n d perhaps o u r w hole age, is in this situation. A nxiously he asks m e, “W h a t can I do?’' A nd I m u st answ er, "I d o n ’t know e ith e r.” “ T h e n th ere’s n o th in g to b e done?” I reply th a t m an k in d has got in to these b lin d alleys countless tim es d u r ­ in g the course of evolution, an d n o one knew w hat to d o because everybody was busy h atch in g o u t clever plans to m eet the situ a­ tion. N o one h ad the courage to a d m it th a t they h ad all taken th e w rong tu rn in g . A n d th en , suddenly, things som ehow began to m ove again, so th a t the sam e old h u m a n ity still exists, th o u g h som ew hat d ifferen t from before. 5»5 W h e n we look a t h u m an history, we see only w h at happens on the surface, a n d even this is d isto rted in the faded m irro r of tra d itio n . B u t w hat has really been h ap p en in g eludes the in ­ q u irin g eye of th e histo rian , for the tru e historical event lies deeply b u rie d , experienced by all an d observed by none. I t is the m ost p riv ate a n d m ost subjective of psychic experiences. W ars, dynasties, social upheavals, conquests, a n d religions are b u t the 148

Sl6

3*7

3'8

3*9

superficial sym ptom s o f a secret psychic a ttitu d e u n k n o w n even to the in d iv id u a l him self, a n d tra n s m itte d by n o h isto ria n ; p e r­ haps the fo u n d e rs of relig io n s give us th e m ost in fo rm a tio n in this reg ard . T h e g re a t events of w o rld h isto ry are, a t b o tto m , p ro fo u n d ly u n im p o rta n t. In th e last analysis, th e essential th in g is th e life o f th e in d iv id u a l. T h is alo n e m akes history, h ere alo n e do th e g re a t tra n sfo rm a tio n s first take place, a n d th e w hole fu tu re , th e w hole h isto ry of th e w orld , u ltim a te ly sp rin g as a gigantic su m m a tio n from these h id d e n sources in in d iv id u als. In o u r m ost p riv a te a n d m ost sub jectiv e lives we are n o t o n ly th e passive w itnesses of o u r age, a n d its sufferers, b u t also its m akers. W e m ake o u r ow n epoch. So w h en I counsel m y p a tie n t to pay a tte n tio n to his dream s, I m ean : “T u r n back to the m ost sub jectiv e p a rt of yourself, to the source o f y o u r being, to th a t p o in t w here you a re m ak in g w orld h istory w ith o u t b e in g aw are of it. Y o u r a p p a re n tly in ­ soluble difficulty m ust, it is obvious, re m a in in so lu b le, fo r o th e r­ wise you w o u ld w ear yourself o u t seeking fo r rem ed ies of w hose in e p titu d e you are convinced from th e start. Y o u r dream s are an expression of y o u r in n e r life, a n d they can show you th ro u g h w hat false a ttitu d e you have la n d ed y o u rself in this b lin d alley .” D ream s are im p a rtia l, sp o n tan eo u s p ro d u cts o f th e u n c o n ­ scious psyche, o u tsid e th e c o n tro l of th e w ill. T h e y are p u re n a tu re ; they show us th e u n v a rn ish ed , n a tu ra l tru th , a n d are th erefo re fitted, as n o th in g else is, to give us back an a ttitu d e th a t accords w ith o u r basic h u m a n n a tu re w h en o u r consciousness has strayed too far fro m its fo u n d a tio n s a n d r u n in to a n im passe. T o co n cern ourselves w ith dream s is a way of reflectin g on ourselves—a way o f self-reflection. I t is n o t o u r ego-consciousness reflecting o n itself; ra th e r, it tu rn s its a tte n tio n to th e ob jectiv e actu ality of th e d re a m as a c o m m u n ic a tio n o r message from the unconscious, u n ita ry soul of h u m a n ity . I t reflects n o t o n th e ego b u t o n th e self; it recollects th a t stran g e self, a lie n to th e ego, w hich was o u rs from th e b e g in n in g , th e tru n k fro m w hich the ego grew . I t is a lie n to us because we have estran g ed ourselves from it th ro u g h the a b e rra tio n s o f th e conscious m in d . B u t even if we accep t th e p ro p o sitio n th a t dream s a re n o t a rb itra ry in v e n tio n s b u t are n a tu ra l p ro d u c ts of unconscious psychic activity, we shall still, w h en c o n fro n te d w ith a real dream , lack th e courage to see in it a message of any im p o rtan ce.

D rea m -in te rp re tatio n was one of th e accom plishm ents of w itch­ craft, a n d was th erefo re am ong th e black arts persecuted by th e C h u rch . Even th o u g h we of th e tw en tieth cen tu ry are ra th e r m o re bro ad -m in d ed in this respect, so m uch historical p reju d ic e still attaches to th e w hole idea o f d re am -in terp retatio n th a t we do n o t take k in d ly to it. Is there, one m ay ask, any relia b le m eth o d of d ream -in terp retatio n ? C an we p u t faith in any of the various speculations? I a d m it th a t I share these misgivings to the full, a n d I am convinced th a t th ere is in fact n o absolutely reliab le m eth o d of in te rp re ta tio n . A b so lu te relia b ility in the in te rp re ­ tatio n of n a tu ra l events is fo u n d only w ith in the narrow est lim its —th a t is to say, w hen no m ore com es o u t of th e in te rp re ta tio n th an we have p u t in. Every a tte m p t to explain n a tu re is a hazard. A relia b le m eth o d does n o t com e in to b eing u n til long after the p io n ee r w ork has been accom plished. W e know th a t F re u d has w ritte n a book on d re am -in terp retatio n , b u t his in te rp re ta tio n is an exam ple of w hat we have ju st said: n o m ore comes o u t of it th an w hat his theory allows to b e p u t in to the dream . T h is view n a tu ra lly does n o t do a n y th in g like justice to th e boundless freedom of dream -life, w ith th e consequence th a t th e m ean in g of th e dream is concealed TatheT th a n revealed. Also, w hen we consider the infinite variety of dream s, it is difficult to conceive th a t th ere co u ld ever be a m eth o d or a technical procedure w hich w ould lead to a n in fallib le result. It is, indeed, a good th in g th a t no valid m eth o d exists, for otherw ise the m ean in g of the dream w ould be lim ited in advance a n d w ould lose precisely th a t v irtu e w hich makes dream s so valuable for th erap eu tic p u r­ poses—th e ir ab ility to offer new p o ints of view. 3ao O n e w ould do well, therefore, to tre a t every dream as though it w ere a totally u n k n o w n object. Look a t it from all sides, take it in y o u r hand, carry it a b o u t w ith you, let y o u r im ag in atio n play ro u n d it, an d talk a b o u t it w ith o th er people. P rim itives tell each o th e r im pressive dream s, in a p u b lic palaver if possible, an d this custom is also attested in late an tiq u ity , for all the an cien t peoples a ttrib u te d g reat significance to dream s. T re a te d in this way, th e dream suggests all m a n n e r of ideas a n d associations w hich lead us closer to its m eaning. T h e ascertain m en t of the m ean in g is, I n eed hardly p o in t ou t, an entirely a rb itra ry affair, a n d this is w here the hazards begin. N arro w er o r w ider lim its w ill be set to the m eaning, according to one's experience, tem150

p e ra m en t, a n d taste. Som e people w ill be satisfied w ith little , for others m u ch is still n o t enough. Also th e m e an in g of th e d ream , o r o u r in te rp re ta tio n of it, is largely d e p e n d e n t o n th e in te n ­ tions of th e in te rp re te r, on w h at h e expects the m e an in g to be o r re q u ire s it to do. In e licitin g th e m e an in g he w ill in v o lu n ­ tarily be g u id e d by c e rta in presu p p o sitio n s, a n d it d ep en d s very m u ch o n th e scrupulousness a n d honesty of th e in v estig ato r w h e th er he gains so m eth in g by his in te rp re ta tio n o r p erh ap s only becom es still m o re deeply e n tan g led in his m istakes. So far as p resu p p o sitio n s are concerned, we m ay take it as c ertain th a t the d re a m is n o t a n idle in v e n tio n of the conscious m in d b u t an in v o lu n ta ry , n a tu ra l p h e n o m en o n , even th o u g h it sh o u ld prove tru e th a t dream s are in som e way d isto rte d by b eco m in g conscious. A nyw ay this d isto rtio n occurs so q u ick ly a n d a u to ­ m atically th a t it is b arely p ercep tib le. I t is th e re fo re safe to assum e th a t it is an in te g ra l p a rt of the d re a m -fu n c d o n . A n d it is eq u ally safe to assum e th a t dream s arise from th e unconscious p a rt of o u r b e in g a n d are, consequently, its sym ptom s, allo w in g us to m ake inferences as to the n a tu re of this being. If we w ish to investigate o u r ow n n a tu re , dream s are the m ost su ita b le m edia fo r this purpose. 3*i D u rin g th e w ork o f in te rp re ta tio n o n e m u st a b sta in fro m all p resuppositions th a t sm ack of su p erstitio n , such as, first a n d fo re­ m ost, th e n o tio n th a t th e p ro tagonists in dream s are n o th in g o th e r th a n these sam e persons in re a l life. O n e sh o u ld n ev er fo r­ get th a t one dream s in th e first place, a n d alm o st to th e exclusion of a ll else, of oneself. (Any exceptions a re g o v ern ed by q u ite definite rules, b u t I c a n n o t go in to this here.) If w e acknow ledge this tr u th we shall som etim es find ourselves faced w ith very in te re stin g problem s. I re m e m b e r tw o in stru c tiv e cases: o n e of my p a tie n ts d re a m ed of a d ru n k e n tra m p w ho lay in a d itc h , a n d a n o th e r o f a d ru n k e n p ro s titu te w ho ro lle d a b o u t in th e g u tte r. T h e first p a tie n t was a theologian, th e second a d istin g u ish ed lady in h ig h society. B oth of th em w ere o u tra g e d a n d h o rrified , an d abso lu tely refu sed to a d m it th a t they h a d d re a m ed of th e m ­ selves. I gave th e m b o th the w ell-m eant advice th a t they sh o u ld spend a n h o u r in self-reflection, d ilig e n tly a n d d ev o u tly co n ­ sidering in w h a t ways they w ere n o t m u ch b e tte r th a n th e ir d ru n k e n b ro th e r in th e d itc h a n d th e ir d ru n k e n sister in th e g u tte r. T h e su b tle process of self-know ledge o fte n begins w ith

a bom b-shell like this. T h e " o th e r” person we dream of is n o t o u r frie n d an d n eig h b o u r, b u t th e o th er in us, of w hom we p re fe r to say: “ I th an k thee, L ord, th a t I am n o t as this p u b lican an d sin n e r.” C ertain ly th e dream , b e in g a child of n atu re, has n o m oralizing in te n tio n ; it m erely exem plifies the w ell-know n law th a t no trees reach u p to heaven. Saz If, in a d d itio n to this, we b ea r in m in d th a t the unconscious contains ev erything th a t is lacking to consciousness, th a t the u n ­ conscious therefore has a com pensatory tendency, th e n we can begin to draw conclusions—provided, of course, th a t the dream does n o t com e from too deep a psychic level. If it is a dream of this kind, it w ill as a ru le co n tain m ythological m otifs, co m b in a­ tions of ideas o r images w hich can be fo u n d in the m yths of o n e’s own folk o r in those o f o th e r races. T h e d ream w ill then have a collective m eaning, a m ean in g w hich is th e com m on p ro p ­ erty of m ankind. 3Z3 T h is does n o t co n tra d ict m y e a rlie r rem ark th a t we always dream of ourselves. As indiv id u als we are n o t com pletely u n iq u e, b u t are like all o th e r m en. H ence a d ream w ith a collective m ean ­ in g is valid in th e first place fo r th e dream er, b u t it expresses at the same tim e the fact th a t his m o m entary p ro b lem is also the p ro b lem of o th er people. T h is is o ften of g reat practical im ­ portance, for th ere are countless people w ho are inw ardly c u t off from h u m an ity an d oppressed by th e th o u g h t th a t nobody else has th e ir problem s. O r else they are those all-too-m odest souls w ho, feeling them selves n o n en tities, have k ep t th e ir claim to social reco g n itio n on too low a level. M oreover, every in d iv id u al p ro b lem is som ehow connected w ith the problem of the age, so th a t practically every subjective difficulty has to be view ed from th e sta n d p o in t of the h u m a n situ a tio n as a whole. B ut this is perm issible only w hen the d ream really is a m ythological one a n d m akes use of collective symbols. 3*4 Such dream s are called by prim itives "b ig ” dream s. T h e prim itives I observed in East A frica took it for g ran ted th a t " b ig ” dream s are d ream ed only by “b ig ” m en—m edicine-m en, m agicians, chiefs, etc. T h is m ay be tru e o n a p rim itiv e level. B u t w ith us these dream s are d ream ed also by sim ple people, m ore p artic u la rly w hen they have g o t themselves, m en tally o r s p iritu ­ ally, in a fix. I t is obvious th a t in h a n d lin g " b ig ” dream s in tu i­ tive guessw ork w ill lead now here. W id e know ledge is re q u ire d ,

such as a specialist o u g h t to possess. B u t n o d ream can b e in ­ te rp re te d w ith know ledge alone. T h is know ledge, fu rth e rm o re , should n o t be d e ad m a te ria l th a t has b e en m em orized; it m u st possess a liv in g q u a lity , a n d b e in fu sed w ith th e ex p erien ce of th e p erson w ho uses it. O f w hat use is p h ilo so p h ical know ledge in th e head, if o n e is n o t also a p h ilo so p h e r a t h eart? A n y o n e w ho w ishes to in te rp re t a d re a m m u st h im self be o n a p p ro x i­ m ately th e sam e level as th e d ream , fo r n o w h ere can h e see an y ­ th in g m ore th a n w h a t h e is him self. 3*5 T h e a rt of in te rp re tin g dream s c a n n o t b e le a rn t fro m books. M ethods a n d ru le s a re good on ly w h en we can g et alo n g w ith ­ o u t them . O n ly th e m an w ho can do it anyw ay has re a l skill, only the m an o f u n d e rs ta n d in g really u n d e rstan d s. N o o n e w ho does n o t know h im self can know others. A n d in each of us th e re is a n o th e r w hom we d o n o t know . H e speaks to us in d ream s an d tells us how d ifferen tly he sees us fro m th e way we see ourselves. W h en , th erefo re, w e find ourselves in a difficult s itu a tio n to w hich th e re is n o so lu tio n , he can som etim es k in d le a lig h t th a t radically a lters o u r a ttitu d e —th e very a ttitu d e th a t led us in to the difficult situ a tio n . 326 T h e m o re I engrossed m yself in these p ro b lem s o v er th e years, th e stro n g e r becam e m y im pression th a t o u r m o d e rn e d u ­ cation is m o rb id ly one-sided. N o d o u b t we are rig h t to o p e n th e eyes a n d ears o f o u r y o u n g p eople to the w ide w orld, b u t it is the m ad d est of delu sio n s to th in k th a t this really e q u ip s th em for the task of living. I t is th e k in d of tra in in g th a t enables a y oung p erso n to a d a p t h im self o u tw a rd ly to th e w o rld a n d reality, b u t n o o n e gives a th o u g h t to the necessity o f a d a p tin g to th e self, to th e pow ers of the psyche, w hich are fa r m ig h tie r th an a ll th e G re at Pow ers of the e arth . A system of e d u c a tio n does in d e ed exist, b u t it has its origins p a rtly in a n tiq u ity a n d p a rtly in the early M id d le Ages. I t styles itself th e C h ristia n C h u rc h . B ut it c a n n o t be d e n ie d th a t in th e course of the last tw o cen ­ tu ries C h ristia n ity , n o less th a n C o n fu cian ism in C h in a a n d B u d d h ism in In d ia , has largely fo rfeited its ed u cativ e activity. H u m a n in iq u ity is n o t to b la m e for this, b u t ra th e r a g ra d u a l an d w idespread s p iritu a l change, the first sym ptom of w hich was the R efo rm a tio n . I t sh attere d the a u th o rity of th e C h u rc h as a teacher, a n d th e re a fte r th e a u th o rita ria n p rin c ip le itself began to c ru m b le away. T h e in e v ita b le conseq u en ce was a n increase in

3*7

328

329

33°

the im p o rtan ce of th e in d iv id u al, w hich fo u n d expression in the m o d e rn ideals of h u m an ity , social w elfare, dem ocracy, a n d equ ality. T h e decidedly in d iv id u alistic tren d of these latest de­ velopm ents is co u n terb alan ced by a com pensatory reversion to the collective m an, whose a u th o rity a t p resent is the sheer w eight of th e masses. N o w o n d er th a t now adays there is a feeling of catastro p h e in the air, as th o u g h an avalanche had b ro k en loose w hich n o th in g can stop. T h e collective m an threatens to stifle the in d iv id u al m an, on whose sense of responsibility everything v alu ab le in m an k in d u ltim ately depends. T h e mass as such is always anonym ous an d always irresponsible. So-called leaders are the in ev itab le sym ptom s of a mass m ovem ent. T h e tru e leaders of m an k in d are always those w ho are capable of self-reflection, a n d w ho relieve the dead w eight of the masses a t least of th eir ow n w eight, consciously h o ld in g aloof from the b lin d m o m en ­ tu m of th e mass in m ovem ent. B u t w ho can resist this all-engulfing force of a ttra ctio n , w hen each m an clings to th e n e x t an d each drags the o th e r w ith him ? O n ly one w ho is firm ly ro o te d n o t only in the outside w orld b u t also in the w orld w ith in . Sm all an d h id d e n is the d o o r th a t leads inw ard, a n d the en tran ce is b arre d by countless prejudices, m istaken assum p­ tions, a n d fears. Always one wishes to h ear of g ran d p o litical an d econom ic schemes, the very things th a t have lan d ed every n a ­ tio n in a morass. T h e re fo re it sounds grotesque w hen anyone speaks of h id d en doors, dream s, an d a w orld w ithin. W h at has this v ap id idealism got to do w ith gigantic econom ic p ro ­ gram m es, w ith th e so-called problem s of reality? B u t I speak n o t to nations, only to the in d iv id u al few, for w hom it goes w ith o u t saying th a t c u ltu ra l values do n o t d ro p dow n like m an n a from heaven, b u t are created by th e hands of individuals. If things go w rong in th e w orld, this is because som e­ th in g is w rong w ith th e in d iv id u al, because som ething is w rong w ith me. T h e re fo re , if I am sensible, I shall p u t m yself rig h t first. F or this I n eed —because outside a u th o rity n o longer m eans an y th in g to m e—a know ledge of th e in n erm o st fo u n d atio n s of m y being, in o rd e r th a t I m ay base myself firm ly on the etern al facts of th e h u m a n psyche. If I spoke before chiefly of dream s, I d id so because I w ished to d raw a tte n tio n to o n e o f th e m ost im m ediate approaches to

the w orld of in n e r experience. B u t th e re are m any th in g s besides dream s w hich I c a n n o t discuss here. T h e in v estig atio n o f th e d eep er levels of th e psyche b rin g s to lig h t m u ch th a t we, o n th e surface, can a t m ost d re a m a b o u t. N o w o n d er, th en , th a t som e­ tim es th e strongest a n d m ost o rig in a l o f all m a n ’s s p iritu a l a ctiv i­ ties—th e re lig io u s activ ity —is also discovered fro m o u r dream s. T h is is th e activ ity w hich, m ore even th a n sex u ality o r social a d a p ta tio n , is th w a rte d in m o d e rn m an . I know p eo p le fo r w hom the e n c o u n te r w ith th e strange pow er w ith in them selves was such a n o v erw h elm in g experience th a t they called it “ G o d .” So experienced, “ G o d ” too is a “ th e o ry ” in th e m ost lite ra l sense, a way of lo o k in g a t th e w orld, an im age w hich th e lim ite d h u m a n m in d creates in o rd e r to express an u n fa th o m a b le a n d ineffable experience. T h e ex p erien ce alone is real, n o t to b e d isp u te d ; b u t th e im age can b e soiled or b ro k en to pieces. N am es a n d w ords are sorry husks, yet they in d ic a te th e q u a l­ ity of w h a t we have experienced. W h e n we call th e devil a neurosis, we are signifying th a t we feel this d em o n ic ex p erien ce as a sickness w hich is ch aracteristic of o u r age. W h e n we call it repressed sex u ality o r th e w ill to pow er, this shows th a t it seri­ ously d istu rb s even these fu n d a m e n ta l in stincts. W h e n we call it G od, we are try in g to describe its p ro fo u n d a n d u n iv ersal signifi­ cance, because this is w h at we have glim p sed in th e ex p erien ce. L ooking a t it soberly, a n d b e a rin g in m in d th e vast, u n k n o w a b le b ackground, we m u st a d m it th a t this la tte r d e sig n a tio n is the m ost cau tio u s a n d also th e m ost m odest, because it sets n o lim its to th e ex p erien ce a n d does n o t squeeze it in to any co n cep tu al schem a. U nless, of course, som eone sh o u ld h it u p o n th e sin g u la r idea th a t he knew exactly w h at G od is. W h ate v e r n am e we m ay p u t to th e psychic b a ck g ro u n d , the fact rem ain s th a t o u r consciousness is in flu en ced by it in the h ighest degree, a n d all the m ore so th e less we are conscious of it. T h e laym an can h ard ly conceive how m u ch his in clin atio n s, m oods, a n d decisions are influenced by th e d a rk forces of his psyche, a n d how d angerous o r h e lp fu l they m ay be in sh ap in g his destiny. O u r c e re b ra l consciousness is like a n a c to r w ho has fo rg o tten th a t he is play in g a role. B u t w h en th e play com es to an end, he m u st re m e m b e r his ow n sub jectiv e reality , fo r h e can n o lo n g er c o n tin u e to live as J u liu s C aesar o r as O th ello , b u t only as him self, from w hom he has becom e estran g ed by a

C IV IL IZ A T IO N IN T R A N S IT IO N

momentary sleight of consciousness. H e must know once again that he was merely a figure on the stage who was playing a piece by Shakespeare, and that there was a producer as w ell as a di­ rector in the background who, as always, w ill have som ething very important to say about his acting.

T H E ST A TE OF PSYCHOTHERAPY T O D A Y 1 333

334

I n e a rlie r days, w h en people w ere less so p h isticated in th e ir ideas, psychotherapy was reg ard ed as a te c h n iq u e w hich co u ld be a p p lie d to p ractically anybody w ho h ad le a rn t it by h eart. In m edical treatises a n d text-books you w o u ld com e across th e w o n d erfu l re m a rk : . . in a d d itio n , the follow ing m ay be of use: massage, cold baths, m o u n ta in air, an d p sy ch o th erap y .” T h e n a tu re of this “psych o th erap y ” was p ru d e n tly n ev er specified in detail. C ertain ly , so lo n g as it consisted of h y p n o tism , suggestion, persuasion, “ re e d u c a tio n de la v o lo n te ,” C ou^ism , a n d so fo rth , anybody co u ld le arn the a r t by ro te a n d say his piece in season a n d o u t of season. T h e m edical profession g e n erally —a n d this includes psychiatrists a n d n eu rologists—is n o to rio u sly slow to learn a n d needs a lo n g p e rio d of in c u b a tio n . A n d so it h a p p en e d that, lo n g a fte r psychotherapy h ad gro w n to a psychology, an d th erap eu tics h a d ceased to be a m ere tech n iq u e, the illu sio n still c o n tin u e d to flourish th a t psychological tre a tm e n t was som e k in d of technical p ro ced u re. I t w o u ld be decidedly too o p ti­ m istic to say th a t this illu sio n has ceased to exist even am o n g the ranks of psychotherapists, n o r w o u ld it accord w ith th e facts. A ll th a t has h a p p en e d is th a t n ow a n d again voices are h eard w hich d e m u r a t the m ech an izatio n of p sychotherapy a n d aspire to rescue it from the soullessness of a m ere tech n ical p ro ced u re. T h e ir aim is to raise it to the h ig h e r p lan e of psychological an d philosophical dialectic, w here it becom es a discussion betw een two psychic systems, th a t is, tw o h u m a n beings c o n fro n tin g one a n o th e r in th e ir totality. T h e se d o u b ts a n d aim s w ere not, as o n e m ig h t th in k , d rag g ed dow n from the airless realm of e tern al ideas by p ern ick ety m inds overloaded w ith philosophy. O n th e con trary , they sp ran g from I [T r a n s la te d fro m “ Z u r g e g e n w a rtig e n I.ag e d e r P s y c h o th e ra p ie ," Z e n tr a lb la tt fiir P sy c h o th e ra p ie u n d ih r e C re n zg e b ie te (L eip zig ), V II (« 9 3 4 ):!, 1-1 6 .—E d i t o r s .]

the deep impression which the unedifying confusion of psycho­ logical and therapeutic views cannot fail to make today even on the distant observer. A glance at the chaotic profusion of psy­ chotherapeutic literature is sufficient confirm ation of this. N ot only are there different schools which u n til very recently have anxiously avoided any serious com m unication w ith one another, there are also groups—self-styled “Societies”—who barricade themselves like cenobites against unbelievers, not to m ention the num erous solitaries who are not a little proud of being the only m em bers of their church, to use the well-known m ot of Coler­ idge. No d o u bt this state of affairs is a sure sign of vitality and of the many pressing problem s still to be solved in the field of psychotherapy. B ut it is far from gratifying; and it ill accords w ith the dignity of science w hen bigoted dogmatism and per­ sonal touchiness ham per the free discussion so necessary to its growth. 335 W hat, indeed, could shed a m ore glaring light on the fact th at psychotherapy is anything b u t a technique than the very m ultiplicity of techniques, points of view, “psychologies,” and philosophical premises (or lack of them)? Does not this welter of contradictions show in the most striking way that w hat we are concerned w ith is far m ore than a technique? A technique can be modified and im proved by all sorts of recipes and dodges, and everybody would welcome a change for the better. But, far from th at being the case, we find all too m any people entrench­ ing themselves behind precepts which they envelop with the sacrosanct halo of dogma. Ostensibly they are guarding the u lti­ m ate scientific tru th ; b u t has it ever—except in the most be­ nighted periods of history—been observed that a scientific tru th needed to be elevated to the rank of a dogma? T ru th can stand on its own feet, only shaky opinions require the support of dogm atization. Fanaticism is ever the brother of doubt. 33s W hat is the lesson of these characteristic and, for the history of any science, very notew orthy signs? Beyond a d o u b t they p o in t to the incontrovertible fact that psychotherapy has o u t­ grown the stage of technique and has already broken into the realm of opinion. W e can easily agree about a technique, b u t hardly ever ab o u t opinions. H ence the heatedness of discussion —indeed if there be any—or the equally eloquent silence. 337 It has long been imagined that psychotherapy can be prac158

tised “ tech n ically ,” as th o u g h it w ere a fo rm u la, a m e th o d of o p eratio n , o r a colour-test. T h e g en eral p ra c titio n e r can use a w ide a sso rtm en t o f m edical te ch n iq u es w ith o u t h esitatio n , w h a t­ ever his p erso n al o p in io n s m ay b e a b o u t his p a tie n ts a n d irre ­ spective of his psychological theories o r even of his p h ilo so p h ical an d relig io u s assum ptions. P sychotherapy c a n n o t be used like that. W h e th e r h e likes it o r not, th e d o c to r an d his assu m p tio n s are involved ju s t as m u ch as th e p a tie n t. I t is in fact largely im m aterial w h at so rt of te c h n iq u e he uses, fo r the p o in t is n o t the te c h n iq u e b u t th e p erson w ho uses th e tech n iq u e. T h e o b ­ ject to w hich the te c h n iq u e is a p p lie d is n e ith e r a n a n ato m ical specim en n o r a n abscess n o r a chem ical substance; it is the to tality of the suffering in d iv id u a l. T h e o b je ct of th e ra p y is n o t th e neurosis b u t th e m an w ho has th e neurosis. W e have lo n g know n, fo r instance, th a t a cardiac neurosis com es n o t fro m the heart, as th e old m edical m ythology w o u ld have it, b u t from th e m in d of th e sufferer. N o r does it com e fro m som e obscure c o rn e r of the unconscious, as m any psychotherapists still stru g g le to believe; it com es from th e to ta lity of a m a n ’s life a n d fro m all th e experiences th a t have a cc u m u la te d over th e years a n d decades, a n d finally, n o t m erely from his life as a n in d iv id u a l b u t from his psychic ex p erien ce w ith in th e fam ily o r even the social g ro u p . 338 In d e alin g w ith a neurosis, th e d o c to r is n o t c o n fro n te d w ith a d e lim ite d field o f illness; he is faced w ith a sick p erso n w ho is sick n o t in o n e p a rtic u la r m echanism o r focus of disease b u t in his w hole p ersonality. “T e c h n iq u e ” c a n n o t cope w ith th at. T h e p erso n ality of th e p a tie n t dem and s all th e resources o f th e d o c to r’s p erso n ality a n d n o t technical tricks. 339 V ery early on, th erefo re, I re q u ire d th a t th e d o c to r h im self sh o u ld be analysed. F re u d seconded this re q u ire m e n t, obviously because he c o u ld n o t escape th e co n v ictio n th a t th e p a tie n t sh o u ld be c o n fro n te d by a d o c to r a n d n o t by a te ch n iq u e. I t is certain ly very la u d ab le in a d o c to r to try to b e as o b jectiv e a n d im p erso n al as possible a n d to re fra in fro m m e d d lin g w ith th e psychology of his p a tie n t like an overzealous saviour. B u t if this a ttitu d e is c a rrie d to artificial lengths it has u n fo rtu n a te conse­ quences. T h e d o c to r w ill find th a t h e c a n n o t overstep th e bounds of n a tu ra ln ess w ith im p u n ity . O th erw ise h e w o u ld b e settin g a b a d ex am p le to his p a tie n t, w ho c ertain ly d id n o t g et

ill from an excess of naturalness. Besides, it w ould be dangerously to u n d erestim ate th e patients if one im agined th a t they w ere all too stu p id to notice the artifices of th e doctor, his security m eas­ ures an d his little gam e of prestige. N o r can it conceivably be the d o cto r’s in te n tio n to stren g th e n the p a tie n t everyw here in his n a tu ra l fu nctioning, an d yet to keep h im as m uch as pos­ sible in th e d ark w hen it comes to the one crucial spot—w hich concerns th e doctor him self—an d so in a state of helpless de­ pendence o r “transference.” Such a m istake could only be m ade by an extrem ely unanalysed d o cto r whose personal prestige c o u n te d for m ore than the w elfare of his p atien t. 34° Because the personality a n d a ttitu d e of the d o cto r are of sup rem e im p o rtan ce in th erap y —w h eth er he appreciates this fact o r n o t—his personal opin io n s stand o u t in a d isp ro p o rtio n ­ ately strong lig h t in the history of psychotherapy a n d are the cause o f ap p aren tly irreconcilable schisms. F reu d took his stand w ith fanatical one-sidedness on sexuality, concupiscence—in a w ord, on th e “ pleasure p rin c ip le .” E verything tu rn s on th e qu es­ tion of w h eth er one can do w hat one wants. R epression, su b lim a­ tion, regression, narcissism, w ish-fulfilm ent a n d the rest are all concepts th a t relate to the g ran d dram a of the pleasure principle. I t alm ost looks as if m an ’s desire an d greed have been m ade the card in al p rin cip le of psychology. 34· A d ler also drew on th e w ide field of h u m an concupiscence an d discovered the need for self-assertion. T h is tendency of h u m an n a tu re was likewise m ade a cardinal p rin c ip le of psy­ chology, an d w ith the same one-sidedness so re g rettab le in F reud. 34^ N ow , th ere is no d o u b t th a t the p rin c ip le of concupiscence can ex p lain a very large n u m b e r of cases of neurosis. In d eed , the sam e case can be ex p lain ed b o th in the m a n n e r of F re u d a n d in th e m a n n e r of A dler, n o r is e ith e r e x p lan atio n lacking in co n ­ viction. As a m a tte r of fact, th e one ex p lan atio n com plem ents th e oth er, w hich in itself w o u ld be a very satisfactory state of affairs d id it n o t also prove th a t n e ith e r e x p lan atio n can lay claim to absolute validity. B oth are relative, h euristic points of view, an d as such u n fitted to be universal concepts. B u t a t least they have a b earin g on essential p a rtia l aspects. T h e theory of repression is based o n certain psychic facts w hich are m et w ith everyw here, a n d th e same is tru e of th e need for self-assertion 16 0

o r th e w ill to p o w er. C le a rly e v ery o n e w o u ld lik e to e n jo y a ll h e can a n d a t th e sam e tim e b e “ o n to p ,” a n d it is e q u a lly o b v io u s th a t so lo n g as h e has th is p rim itiv e , n aiv e, in f a n tile a t tit u d e h e w ill n o t b e a b le to a v o id a n e u ro sis if e v e r h e m ak es a n a tte m p t to a d a p t h im se lf to h is s u rro u n d in g s . T h is last c o n d itio n is v ery m u c h to th e p o in t, fo r w ith o u t it th e re is n o n e u ro s is b u t sim p ly m o ra l in s a n ity o r th e h ig h e r id io cy . 343 If, th e n , a t le ast tw o c o n d itio n s a r e necessary to p r o d u c e a n eu ro sis, b o th m u s t b e o f a e tio lo g ic a l sig n ifican ce. I t is o u t o f th e q u e s tio n fo r o n ly th e in f a n tile a ttitu d e to b e cau sal, b u t n o t th e w ill to a d a p t. N o t o n ly can th e la tte r b e a n a e tio lo g ic a l facto r, it alw ays is so. F r e u d a n d A d le r e x p la in a n e u ro s is e x c lu ­ sively fro m th e in f a n tile a n g le. A m o re c o m p re h e n s iv e e x p la n a ­ tio n w o u ld b e fo rc e d to ta k e a c c o u n t o f th e w ill to a d a p t as w ell. T h e r e n e e d n o t alw ays b e s im p ly a n excess o f in f a n tilis m ; th e re can also b e a n excess o f a d a p ta tio n . N o r m u s t th is la tte r possi­ b ility n ecessarily b e u n d e rs to o d as a m e re re p re s s io n o f in f a n ­ tilism o r as a “ s u b s titu te f o r m a tio n ” ; w e c o u ld e q u a lly w ell e x p la in in fa n tilis m as re p re s s io n o f a d a p ta tio n a n d call it a “ s u b ­ s titu te f o r m a tio n .” N e ith e r F r e u d n o r A d le r w o u ld w elco m e th is rev ersal, a lth o u g h it is lo g ically u n a v o id a b le o n c e w e tak e th e a e tio lo g ic a l sig n ifican ce o f th e w ill to a d a p t in to a c c o u n t. A n d th is w e m u s t d o —ev en F r e u d n eed s a fa c to r th a t represses, th a t does n o t fu lfil w ishes, th a t aro u ses a n x ie ty , etc. A d le r n eed s s o m e th in g th a t k eep s a m a n d o w n . I f th e re is n o a e tio lo g ic a l o p p o site o f e q u a l s tre n g th , th e n a ll th a t in f a n tile c o n c u p isc e n c e is w ith o u t o b je c t. 344 H a v in g d isc o v e re d th a t every n e u r o tic suffers fro m in f a n tile co n cu p isc en ce, w e m u s t s till ask h o w it is w ith h is w ill to a d a p t, fo r p e rh a p s h e has d e v e lo p e d in f a n tile c o n c u p isc e n c e m e re ly as a “s u b s titu te fo r m a tio n .” I n th is case it w o u ld b e p u re ly sy m p ­ to m a tic a n d n o t g e n u in e a t a ll; a n d , if e x p la in e d fro m th e in f a n ­ tile a n g le , th e e x p la n a tio n w o u ld b e q u ite b e sid e th e p o in t. M o re, a n u n fo rg iv e a b le b lu n d e r w o u ld h av e b e e n c o m m itte d . U n f o r tu n a te ly su ch b lu n d e rs a re v ery fr e q u e n t, b eca u se th e d o c ­ to r’s a tte n tio n is tu r n e d to o ex clu siv ely to th e in f a n tile tra its. T h e p a tie n t is th e n a u to m a tic a lly c h a rg e d w ith in fe rio rity . 345 I n fa n tilis m , h o w ev er, is s o m e th in g e x tre m e ly a m b ig u o u s . F irst, it c a n b e e ith e r g e n u in e o r p u r e ly s y m p to m a tic ; a n d second, it c a n b e e ith e r re s id u a ry o r e m b ry o n ic . T h e r e is a n 161

e n o rm o u s d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n s o m e th in g th a t has re m a in e d in ­ f a n tile a n d s o m e th in g th a t is in th e process o f g ro w th . B o th c an ta k e a n in fa n tile o r e m b ry o n ic fo rm , a n d m o re o fte n th a n n o t it is im p o ssib le to te ll a t first g la n c e w h e th e r w e a re d e a lin g w ith a r e g re tta b ly p e rs is te n t fra g m e n t o f in f a n tile life o r w ith a v ita lly im p o r ta n t c re a tiv e b e g in n in g . T o d e rid e th ese p o s sib ilitie s is to a c t lik e a d u lla r d w h o does n o t k n o w th a t th e f u tu r e is m o re im ­ p o r ta n t th a n th e past. F o r th is re a so n it w o u ld b e m o re a d v isa b le to e x a m in e th ese “ in fa n tile -p e rv e rs e ” fan tasies fo r th e ir c re a tiv e c o n te n t th a n to tra c e th e m b a c k to th e c ra d le , a n d to u n d e r s ta n d a ll n e u ro s is m o re as a n a tte m p t a t a d a p ta tio n th a n as a n u n s u c ­ c essful o r o th e rw ise d is to rte d w ish -fu lfilm e n t. 346 N a tu ra lly , th e th e o ry o f in fa n tilis m has th e in e s tim a b le a d ­ v a n ta g e o f alw ays p u ttin g th e d o c to r “ o n to p ” as th e re p re s e n ta ­ tiv e o f s o u n d , h e a lth y , s u p e r io r in s ig h t, w h ile th e p o o r p a tie n t lies th e re help less, th e v ic tim o f u n c o n sc io u s in fa n tile -p e rv e rs e w ish -fu lfilm e n ts. T h is a lso gives th e d o c to r th e o p p o r tu n ity to k n o w b e tte r, to a v o id m e e tin g th e p a tie n t’s p e rs o n a lity face to face, a n d to h id e b e h in d a te c h n iq u e . 347 I t is n o t h a rd to see h o w m u c h th is a ttitu d e is a id e d a n d a b e tte d b y a ll m a n n e r o f co n scio u s a n d u n c o n sc io u s te n d e n c ie s, a n d w h y a th e o ry o f in fa n tilis m is w e lco m e d b y th e d o c to r fro m th e s ta rt, even if, as a h u m a n b e in g , h e w e re q u ite re a d y to a c k n o w le d g e th e p e rs o n a lity o f h is p a tie n t. T h e tre m e n d o u s in ­ flu e n c e F r e u d ’s id eas h av e e x e r te d re sts n o t m e re ly o n th e ir a g re e m e n t w ith th e re a l o r su p p o se d facts, b u t v e ry la rg e ly o n th e easy o p p o r tu n ity th e y a ffo rd o f to u c h in g th e o th e r fe llo w o n h is sore sp o t, o f d e fla tin g h im a n d h o is tin g o n e se lf in to a s u p e r io r p o s itio n . W h a t a blessed r e lie f it is w h e n o n e c a n say in a tig h t c o rn e r, “ T h a t ’s n o th in g b u t re s ista n c e !” o r w h e n o n e n e e d n o lo n g e r ta k e o n e 's o p p o n e n t’s a r g u m e n t se rio u sly b ecau se i t c a n so easily b e e x p la in e d aw ay as “s y m b o lic a l” —w ith o u t, b e i t n o te d , e v e r a sk in g h im w h e th e r th is e x p la n a tio n is a c c e p ta b le to h is psychology. 348 B esides w h ic h , th e re a re n u m b e rle s s p a tie n ts w h o , w ith a g r e a t sh o w o f coyness, a re a t b o tto m o n ly to o re a d y to s u b sc rib e to th e in fa n tilis m th e o ry , b e c a u se i t gives th e m a b ro a d h i n t o f h o w to pass off th e d is tu r b in g “ in fa n tilis m ” as a “ n o th in g b u t .” A n d in m a n y cases th e th e o ry offers a h e a v e n -se n t w ay o u t o f th e u n p le a s a n tly a c u te p ro b le m s o f re a l life in to th e b lissfu l m e a d 162

ows of childhood, where, having invoked the aetiological bogy, the p atie n t pretends to discover why he is no good in the present and how it is all the fau lt of his parents and his upbringing. 349 A dm ittedly there is n o th in g th a t cannot be used to illegiti­ m ate advantage. B u t one ought to note where the misuse creeps in an d how it is being exploited. T hese things depend very largely on the doctor, who m ust take his p atien t w ith great seri­ ousness in o rd er to detect abuses of this kind. A technique notices nothing, b u t a hu m an b eing does—and he alone can develop the sensitiveness necessary to decide w hether a neurosis should be treated from the in fan tile angle or from the adapta­ tion angle. 35° I need hardly say th a t technique is necessary u p to a p o in t— we are all sufficiently convinced of that. B ut b eh in d every m ethod there stands the m an, w ho is so m uch m ore im p o rtan t because, irrespective of his technique, he has to arrive at deci­ sions w hich are a t least as vital to the p atien t as any technique however adroitly applied. I t is therefore the duty of the psycho­ therapist to exercise self-knowledge and to criticize his personal assum ptions, w hether religious or philosophical, ju st as asepsis is obligatory for a surgeon. T h e doctor m ust know his “ personal eq u atio n ” in o rd er n o t to do violence to his patient. T o this end I have w orked o u t a critical psychology which w ould enable the psychiatrist to recognize the various typical attitudes, even though the F reu d ian school asserts th at this has n o th in g to do with psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is evidently a technique be­ h in d which the hu m an being vanishes, an d which always re­ mains the same no m atter who practises it. C onsequently, the psychoanalyst needs no self-knowledge and no criticism of his assumptions. A pparently the purpose of his train in g analysis is to m ake him n o t a hu m an being b u t a correct ap p lier of tech­ nique. 351 B u t even regarded as a technique psychoanalysis is far from simple. In actual fact it is a very com plicated and fiendishly tricky affair com pared even w ith the m ost elaborate chemical procedure, subject to endless v ariation and well-nigh u n p red ict­ able in its results. A nyone who finds th at hard to believe should peruse the “ tech n iq u e” of a F reu d ian dream-analysis in T h e Interpretation of Dreams—for instance, the dream of “Irm a’s injection.” T o call such a procedure a “ technique” requires a 163

352

s tro n g dose o f o p tim ism . A n d yet d re a m s a re su p p o se d to b e th e “via regia to th e u n c o n sc io u s” a n d to p lay a n o t u n c e rta in ro le in psychoanalysis! T r u ly o n e m u st b e s m itte n w ith b lin d ­ ness n o t to see th a t th is k in d o f “ te c h n iq u e ” is first a n d fo rem o st a n e x p ressio n o f th e m an w h o a p p lie s it a n d o f all his su b je c tiv e a ssu m p tio n s. T h e s e reflections lead us b ack to th e p ro b le m o f th e d o c to r’s a ttitu d e a n d to th e n e e d for c ritic ism o f su b jec tiv e p rem ises. A su b je c tiv e view of th e w o rld sh o u ld n o t b e im p o rte d u n c ritic a lly in to his c o n c e p tio n of n eu ro sis, as was th e case, fo r in stan ce, w ith F r e u d ’s view o f th e u n co n scio u s a n d w ith his m a te ria lis tic bias in re g a rd to th e re lig io u s fu n c tio n o f th e psyche. T h e psycho­ th e ra p is t sh o u ld no lo n g e r la b o u r u n d e r th e d e lu sio n th a t th e tr e a tm e n t o f n e u ro sis d e m a n d s n o th in g m o re th a n th e k n o w l­ ed ge o f a te c h n iq u e ; h e sh o u ld b e a b so lu te ly c le a r in his ow n m in d th a t psychological tr e a tm e n t o f th e sick is a re la tio n sh ip in w h ic h th e d o c to r is in v o lv e d q u ite as m u c h as th e p a tie n t. T r u e psychological tr e a tm e n t c a n o n ly b e in d iv id u a l, a n d th is is w hy even th e b e st te c h n iq u e has o n ly a re la tiv e v a lu e. A ll th e m o re significance, th e re fo re , falls to th e g e n e ra l a ttitu d e of th e d o c to r, w ho m u s t k n o w h im se lf w ell e n o u g h n o t to d e stro y th e p e c u lia r values o f th e p a tie n t e n tru s te d to h is care, w h a te v e r th ese m ay be. I f A lfre d A d le r w ere to re q u e s t a n a ly tic a l tre a t­ m e n t o f his o ld te a c h e r F re u d , F re u d w o u ld have to a d ju s t h im ­ self to see in g A d le r’s p e c u lia r psychology, ev en to th e p o in t o f a d m ittin g its g e n eral r ig h t to ex ist; fo r th e re a re in n u m e ra b le p e o p le w hose psychology is th a t o f th e so n in n e e d o f p restig e. If, o n th e o th e r h a n d , I w ere to analyse F re u d , I w o u ld b e d o in g h im a g re a t a n d irre p a ra b le w ro n g if I fa ile d to take e la b o ra te a c c o u n t o f th e very re a l h isto ric a l sig n ifican ce of th e n u rse ry , th e im p o rta n c e of th e e n ta n g le m e n ts of th e fam ily ro m a n c e, th e b itte rn e s s a n d g ra v ity o f e a rly -a c q u ire d re se n tm e n ts, and. th e ir c o m p en sa to ry a c c o m p a n im e n t b y w ish-fantasies w h ic h —u n h a p ­ p ily —c a n n o t b e fulfilled , a n d to a c c e p t all th is as a fa it a cco m p li. F re u d w o u ld c e rta in ly take it am iss if I to ld h im th a t re s e n t­ m e n ts a re all n o th in g b u t a “s u b s titu te ” fo r fa ilu re to love o n e 's n e ig h b o u r, o r so m e th in g o f th a t so rt. T r u e as su ch a n a sse rtio n m ig h t b e in o th e r cases, i t w o u ld be in c o rre c t h e re , ev en if I s h o u ld succeed in p e rs u a d in g F re u d o f th e tr u t h o f m y id ea. D o u b tle ss F re u d m e an s w h a t h e says, c o n se q u e n tly w e m u s t tak e 164

353

h im as the type of person w ho says such things. O n ly th e n is his p a rtic u la r case accepted, a n d w ith it a ll those whose psychology is sim ilarly c o n stitu ted . B u t since we can h a rd ly suppose th a t e ith e r F re u d o r A d le r is a u niversally v alid re p re se n ta tiv e of E u ro p ea n m an, th e re is som e hope th a t I too m ay possess my ow n p e c u lia r psychology, an d , w ith m e, all those w ho c an n o t subscribe to the p rim acy of in fantile-p erv erse w ish-fantasies o r to th a t of th e u rg e to pow er. It goes w ith o u t saying th a t this sh o u ld n o t b e a m a tte r for naive self-deception; o n the co n trary , n o p sy ch o th erap ist sh o u ld le t slip the o p p o rtu n ity to stu d y him self critically in th e lig h t of these negative psychologies. F re u d a n d A d ler have b eh eld very clearly th e shadow th a t accom panies us all. T h e Jew s have this p e cu liarity in com m on w ith w om en; b e in g physically w eaker, they have to aim a t the chinks in th e a rm o u r of th e ir adversary, a n d thanks to this te c h n iq u e w hich has b e e n forced o n th e m th ro u g h th e cen tu ries, th e Jew s them selves are best p ro te c ted w here o thers a re m ost v u ln e ra b le. Because, again, of th e ir civilization, m o re th a n tw ice as a n c ie n t as ours, they are vastly m ore conscious th a n we of h u m a n weaknesses, o f the shadow -side of things, a n d hence in this respect m u ch less v u l­ n e ra b le th a n we are. T h a n k s to th e ir ex p erien ce of a n old cu l­ tu re, they a re able, w hile fully conscious o f th e ir frailties, to live o n frien d ly a n d even to le ra n t term s w ith them , w hereas we a re still to o y o u n g n o t to have “ illu sio n s” a b o u t ourselves. M oreover, we have b een e n tru s te d by fate w ith th e task of c re a tin g a civ ilizatio n —a n d in d eed we have n eed of it—a n d for this “ illu sio n s” in the form of one-sided ideals, convictions, plans, etc. are indispensable. As a m e m b e r of a race w ith a threethousand-year-old civilization, th e Jew , like th e c u ltu re d C h i­ nese, has a w id er area of psychological consciousness th a n we. C on seq u en tly it is in general less d ang ero u s for th e Je w to p u t a negative value o n his unconscious. T h e “A ry an ” unconscious, o n the o th e r h a n d , contains explosive forces a n d seeds of a fu tu re yet to be b o rn , a n d these m ay n o t be d ev alu ed as nu rsery ro m an ticism w ith o u t psychic d anger. T h e still y o u th fu l G e r­ m anic peoples are fully capable of c re a tin g new c u ltu ra l form s th a t still lie d o rm a n t in the darkness of th e unconscious of every in d iv id u a l—seeds b u rs tin g w ith energy a n d cap ab le of m ig h ty expansion. T h e Jew , w ho is so m eth in g of a nom ad, has n ev er yet 165

created a c u ltu ra l fo rm of his ow n a n d as far as we can see never w ill, since all his instincts a n d talen ts re q u ire a m o re or less civilized n a tio n to act as host for th e ir developm ent. 354 T h e Jew ish race as a w hole—a t least this is m y ex perience— possesses an unconscious w hich can be com pared w ith the “A ry an ” only w ith reserve. C reative individuals ap a rt, th e aver­ age Jew is far too conscious a n d d ifferen tiated to go a b o u t p reg ­ n a n t w ith the tensions of u n b o rn fu tures. T h e “A ryan” u n c o n ­ scious has a h ig h er p o te n tia l th a n th e Jew ish; th a t is b o th the advantage a n d the disadvantage of a youthfulness n o t yet fully w eaned from barbarism . In m y o p in io n it has b een a grave e rro r in m edical psychology u p till now to apply Jew ish categories— w hich are n o t even b in d in g o n a ll Jew s—in d iscrim in ately to G er­ m an ic an d Slavic C h risten d o m . Because of this the m ost precious secret of th e G erm an ic peoples—th e ir creative a n d in tu itiv e d e p th of soul—has b een ex p lain ed as a m orass of b a n a l in fa n ­ tilism , w hile my ow n w arn in g voice has for decades been sus­ pected of anti-Sem itism . T h is suspicion em anated from F reud. H e d id n o t u n d e rsta n d the G erm an ic psyche any m ore th a n d id his G erm an ic followers. H as th e form idable p h en o m en o n of N atio n a l Socialism, on w hich th e w hole w orld gazes w ith aston­ ished eyes, tau g h t th em better? W h ere was th a t u n p a ra lle le d tension an d energy w hile as yet no N atio n al Socialism existed? D eep in th e G erm an ic psyche, in a p it th a t is a n y th in g b u t a garbage-bin of u n realizab le in fa n tile wishes a n d unresolved fam ily resentm ents. A m o v em en t th a t grips a w hole n a tio n m ust have m a tu re d in every in d iv id u a l as well. T h a t is why I say th a t the G erm an ic unconscious co n tain s tensions an d p o ten tialitie s w hich m edical psychology m u st consider in its ev alu atio n of th e unconscious. Its business is n o t w ith neuroses b u t w ith h u m a n beings—that, in fact, is th e g ran d p rivilege of m edical psychology: to tre a t th e w hole m an a n d n o t a n artificially segregated func­ tio n .2 A n d th a t is why its scope m u st be w idened to reveal to the physician’s gaze n o t ju st th e pathological ab erratio n s of a d istu rb e d psychic d ev elo p m en t, b u t the creative pow ers of the psyche la b o u rin g a t th e fu tu re ; n o t ju st a dreary fragm ent b u t the m ean in g fu l whole. 2 S i m i l a r v ie w s a r e e x p r e s s e d b y v o n W e iz s S c k e r i n r e g a r d t o i n t e r n a l m e d i c i n e . [ V i k t o r v o n W e iz s a c k e r (1 8 8 6 -1 9 5 7 ) , p r o f e s s o r o f m e d i c i n e a t H e i d e l b e r g U n i v e r *>ry. H e p i o n e e r e d i n p s y c h o s o m a ti c m e d i c i n e . —E d i t o r s .]

355

356

A neurosis is by n o m eans m erely a n eg ativ e th in g , it is also som ething positive. O n ly a soulless ra tio n a lism re in fo rce d by a n arro w m a terialistic o u tlo o k co u ld possibly have ov erlo o k ed this fact. I n re a lity the neurosis co n tain s the p a tie n t’s psyche, o r a t least a n essential p a rt o f it; a n d if, as th e ra tio n a list p reten d s, the neurosis co u ld be p lu ck ed fro m h im like a b a d to o th , he w ould have g a in ed n o th in g b u t w o u ld have lost so m eth in g very essential to h im . T h a t is to say, he w o u ld have lost as m u ch as the th in k e r d e p riv e d of his d o u b t, o r th e m o ra list d e p riv e d of his te m p tatio n , o r th e b rave m an d e p riv e d of his fear. T o lose a neurosis is to find oneself w ith o u t a n o b ject; life loses its p o in t a n d hence its m eaning. T h is w o u ld n o t b e a cu re, it w o u ld be a re g u la r a m p u ta tio n ; a n d it w ould b e cold co m fo rt in d e ed if the psychoanalyst th e n assured th e p a tie n t th a t he h a d lost n o th ­ in g b u t his in fa n tile paradise w ith its w ish fu l chim eras, m ost of them perverse. V ery m u c h m o re w o u ld have b e en lost, fo r h id ­ d e n in the neurosis is a b it of still u n d e v elo p e d p erso n ality , a precious frag m e n t of th e psyche lack in g w hich a m an is con­ d em n ed to re sig n atio n , b ittern ess, a n d ev ery th in g else th a t is hostile to life. A psychology of neurosis th a t sees o n ly th e nega­ tive elem ents em pties o u t the baby w ith th e b ath -w ater, since it neglects the positive m e an in g a n d valu e of these “ in fa n tile ”— i.e., creative—fantasies. So o fte n its m a in e n d ea v o u r seems to lie in try in g to e x p lain ev ery th in g backw ards a n d dow nw ards, an d th ere is o f course n o th in g th a t is n o t cap ab le o f som e obscene c aricatu re. B u t this w ill n ev er p ro v e th a t th e sym bol o r sym p­ tom so ex p lain ed really has th a t m ean in g ; it m erely d e m o n ­ strates th e adolescent sm utty-m indedness o f th e ex p lain er. A n d h e re I c a n n o t re fra in fro m re m a rk in g how o fte n i t h a p ­ pens th a t otherw ise serious-m inded physicians, in co m p lete dis­ reg ard of a ll th e fu n d a m e n ta l tenets of scientific c au tio n , w ill in te rp re t psychological m a te ria l in th e lig h t o f su b jectiv e con­ jectures, of w hich one can m ake absolu tely n o th in g ex cep t th a t they a re a ll a tte m p ts to discover by w h a t obscene jo k e the m a te ria l can be re la te d to som e oral, an al, u re th ra l, o r o th e r sexual a b n o rm ality . T h e poison o f th e “ low -dow n” in te rp re ta ­ tio n has b itte n so deeply in to th e m a rro w o f these p e o p le ’s bones th a t they can n o lo n g e r th in k a t a ll ex cep t in th e in fa n tile -p e r­ verse ja rg o n o f c e rta in n e u ro tics w ho display a ll th e p e cu liarities of a F re u d ia n psychology. I t is positively g ro tesq u e th a t th e doc167

to r s h o u ld h im se lf fall in to a w ay of th in k in g w h ic h in o th e rs h e rig h tly cen su res as in fa n tile a n d w an ts to c u re fo r th a t re a so n . C e rta in ly it is m u c h e asie r to m a k e c o n je c tu re s o v e r th e h e a d o f th e p a tie n t th a n to see w h a t th e e m p iric a l m a te ria l re a lly m eans. N ev erth eless, o n e m u s t assum e th a t th e p a tie n t cam e to th e a n a ly st in o rd e r to r id h im se lf of h is m o rb id w ay o f th in k in g a n d lo o k in g a t thin g s, a n d w e m ay th e re fo re in fe r—as ev ery ­ w h e re else in m o d e rn m e d ic in e —th a t th e sy m p to m is re a lly th e effo rt o f th e diseased system to c u re itself. B u t if th e a n a ly s t’s th o u g h ts, sp o k e n o r u n sp o k e n , a re as n e g a tiv e a n d d is p a ra g in g as th e p a tie n t’s, a n d if h e d e g ra d es e v e ry th in g to th e lev el o f a “ d irty jo k e ” psychology, th e n w e m u s t n o t b e s u rp ris e d if th e p a tie n t becom es s p iritu a lly b lig h te d a n d co m p en sates fo r th is b lig h t by in c u ra b le in te lle c tu a lism . 357 U n fo rtu n a te ly it is tru e th a t th e re a re fa r to o m a n y p e o p le w h o ju stify o u r m is tru s t. X o o m a n y o f th e m use id e als a n d m e re tric io u s v alu es to p u ll w o o l o v e r th e ir o w n eyes. O fte n th e a n aly st has to re d u c e th e m to a v ery u n p le a s a n t fo rm u la in d e e d in o rd e r to b rin g h o m e to th e m th e tr u t h a b o u t them selves. B u t n o t all p e o p le a re lik e th a t. A t least as m a n y p a tie n ts n e e d a n y ­ th in g r a th e r th a n d is tru s t a n d d is p a ra g e m e n t. T h e y a re fu n d a ­ m e n ta lly d e c e n t fo lk w h o p la y fa ir a n d d o n o t p ro s titu te id eals fo r th e a d o rn m e n t o f th e ir in fe rio ritie s. T o tre a t su ch p e o p le re d u c tiv ely , to im p u te u lte r io r m o tiv es to th e m , a n d to su sp e c t th e ir n a tu ra l w holesom eness o f u n n a tu r a l o b scen ities is n o t o n ly sin fu lly s tu p id b u t p o sitiv ely c rim in a l. A te c h n iq u e is alw ays a soulless m e ch a n ism , a n d w h o e v e r tak es p sy c h o th e ra p y fo r a te c h n iq u e a n d v a u n ts it as su ch r u n s th e risk , a t th e v ery least, of c o m m ittin g a n u n p a rd o n a b le b lu n d e r. A c o n sc ie n tio u s d o c to r m u st b e a b le to d o u b t a ll his skills a n d a ll h is th e o rie s, o th e rw ise h e is b e fo o le d b y a system . B u t a ll system s m e a n b ig o try a n d in h u m a n ity . N e u ro sis—le t th e re b e n o d o u b t a b o u t th is —m ay b e an y n u m b e r o f th in g s, b u t n e v e r a “ n o th in g b u t .” I t is th e ag ony of a h u m a n soul in a ll its v ast c o m p le x ity —so vast, in d e e d , th a t a n y a n d every th e o ry of n e u ro sis is little b e tte r th a n a w orthless sk etch , un less it b e a g ig a n tic p ic tu re o f th e psyche w h ich n o t even a h u n d re d F austs c o u ld conceive. 358 T h e fu n d a m e n ta l ru le fo r th e p sy c h o th e ra p ist s h o u ld b e to c o n sid e r each case n ew a n d u n iq u e . T h a t, p ro b a b ly , is th e n e a r ­ est w e can g e t to th e tru th .

359

T h e p ro p e r h a n d lin g o f psychic m a te ria l re q u ire s su p rem e tact a n d a n alm ost a rtistic sensitiveness. W ith o u t these, it is h ard ly possible to d istin g u ish w hat is v alu ab le from w h at is not. A neurosis, as I have said, consists of two things: in fa n tile u n ­ w illingness a n d th e w ill to a d ap t. H en ce one has first to feel o n e’s way u n til o n e is sure o n w hich side th e accen t lies, for the road goes on from there. If the accen t is o n th e w ill to ad ap t, th ere is no sense in decrying the a tte m p t a t a d a p ta tio n as an in fa n tile w ish-fantasy. T h e analyst is very liab le to m ake this m istake w ith his p a tie n t, a n d th e p a tie n t—to his ow n great in ju ry —is ever so d e lig h te d because h e is th e n p ro te c te d o n m edical a u th o rity against the feared o r h a te d d em an d s of his neurosis, th a t is, against the dem and s of th a t p a rt of his p er­ sonality w hich is concealed in it. B u t this “ o th e r” p erso n ality is the very th in g h e o u g h t never to lose sig h t of, for it is his ow n in n e r an tithesis, th e conflict th a t m u st b e fo u g h t o u t ag ain an d again if life is to go on. W ith o u t this in itia l o p p o sitio n th ere is no flow of energy, no vitality. Lack of o p p o sitio n b rin g s life to a stan d still w herever th a t lack reaches. B u t b eyond th a t reach life flows o n unconsciously in ever-renew ed a n d ever-changing form s o f neurosis. O n ly if we u n d e rsta n d an d accept the n e u ­ rosis as o u r tru e st a n d m ost precious possession can we b e sure of av o id in g stag n atio n an d of n o t su ccu m b in g to rig id ity an d n e u ro tic su b terfu g e. In the neurosis is h id d e n o n e ’s w orst enem y a n d best friend. O ne c a n n o t ra te h im too highly, unless o f course fate has m ade one hostile to life. T h e re are always deserters, b u t they have n o th in g to say to us, n o r we to them . 36° N e u ro tic sym bolism is am biguous, p o in tin g a t once forw ard a n d back, d o w nw ard an d up. In g eneral th e forw ard m o v em en t is the m ore im p o rta n t, because the fu tu re is co m in g a n d the past re treatin g . O nly those w ho are p re p a rin g a re tre a t w ill do b e tte r to look back. T h e n e u ro tic has n o need to feel him self b eaten ; he has m erely m isjudged his necessary adversary, th in k in g th a t he could give him th e slip. T h e w hole task of his personality lies in the very th in g he sought to avoid. A ny d o cto r w ho deludes h im on th a t score is d o in g h im a disservice. T h e p a tie n t has not to learn how to get rid of his neurosis, b u t how to bear it. H is illness is n o t a g ra tu ito u s a n d th erefo re m eaningless b u rd e n ; it is his ow n S e l f j th e “ o th e r” w hom , from ch ild ish laziness o r fear, o r for som e o th e r reason, he was always seeking to ex clu d e from 169

his life. In this way, as F re u d rig h tly says, we tu rn th e ego in to a “seat of an x iety ,” w hich it w o u ld never be if we d id n o t defen d ourselves against ourselves so n eu ro tically . W h e n th e ego has been m ade a “seat o f an x iety ,” som eone is r u n n in g aw ay from him self an d w ill n o t ad m it it. T h a t d read ed “ o th e r self” is the m ain targ et of psychoanalysis w ith its depreciating, u n d e rm in ­ ing tech n iq u e w hich is always seeking to w ear dow n the enem y a n d crip p le him for good. 361 W e sh o u ld n o t try to “get r id ” o f a neurosis, b u t ra th e r to experience w h at it m eans, w h at it has to teach, w h at its p urpose is . W e sh o u ld even learn to be th a n k fu l for it, otherw ise we pass it by an d miss th e o p p o rtu n ity of g e ttin g to know ourselves as we really are. A neurosis is tru ly rem oved only w hen it has rem oved th e false a ttitu d e of th e ego. W e d o n o t cu re it—it cures us. A m an is ill, b u t the illness is n a tu re ’s a tte m p t to heal him . F rom the illness itself we can le a rn so m u c h for o u r recovery, a n d w h at th e n e u ro tic flings away as absolutely w orthless contains the tru e gold we sh o u ld never have fo u n d elsew here. T h e psycho­ analyst’s every second w ord is “ n o th in g b u t”—ju s t w h at a dealer w o u ld say of a n article he w an ted to buy o n th e cheap. I n this case it is m a n ’s soul, his hope, his boldest flight, his finest a d ­ v en tu re. 36? N o, it w ill n o t do, this a tte m p t to b u y off th e sick m a n ’s neurosis an d w ith it his soul. M oreover it is, a t b o tto m , a n im ­ possible u n d ertak in g , a frau d : in th e long r u n nobody can dodge his shadow unless he lives in etern al darkness. W h a t the p a tie n t enco u n ters in a n e u ro tic dissociation is a strange, unrecognized p a rt of his personality, w hich seeks to com pel his reco g n itio n in exactly the sam e way th a t any o th e r p a rt of th e body, if obsti­ nately d en ied , w o u ld insist on its presence. If anyone set o u t to deny the existence of his left h an d , h e w ould in ev itab ly get en tan g led in a fantastic w eb of “n o th in g b u t” ex p lan atio n s, ju st as happens to th e n e u ro tic —except th a t th e psychoanalyst d ig n i­ fies them w ith the nam e of a “ th eory.” T h e infantile-perverse “n o th in g b u t” fantasies are th e p a tie n t’s efforts to deny his left hand. T h e se efforts are them selves his m o rb id deviation, a n d they are in te re stin g only inasm uch as all fantasies co n tain a secret allusion to the left hand. E verything else a b o u t th em is u n real, because it is m erely co n triv e d for the purpose of conceal­ m ent. F reud, o f course, th inks th a t the th in g concealed is the 170

thing these fantasies m o re o r less o pen ly a llu d e to, i.e., sexuality and all th e re st of it. B u t this is ju s t w h at th a t k in d of p a tie n t is aim ing a t all th e tim e. H e rides the sam e hobby-horse as his analyst, w ho m ay even have h a n d ed h im a h e lp fu l idea o r tw o— the fam ous in fa n tile sexual trau m a, fo r instance, w hich we can spend so m u c h tim e chasing, only to find th a t we are as far from the tru th as ever. 363 T h e tru e reason for a neurosis always lies in the presen t, since the neurosis exists in the present. I t is defin itely n o t a h an g ­ over from the past, a caput m o r t u u m ; it is fed a n d as it w ere new -m ade every day. A n d it is only in th e today, n o t in o u r yesterdays, th a t th e neurosis can be “ c u re d .” Because th e n e u ­ rotic conflict has to be fo u g h t today, any h isto rical d ev iatio n is a d e to u r, if n o t actu ally a w rong tu rn in g . A n d because the neurosis contains a p a rt o f o n e ’s ow n personality, a n excursus in to the th o u san d a n d one possibilities of obscene fantasy an d unfulfillab le in fa n tile wishes is ju st a p re te x t fo r av o id in g the essential qu estio n . 364 T h e essential q u e stio n is: w h a t w ill p ierce th ro u g h this fog of verbiage to th e conscious p ersonality of the p a tie n t, an d w h at m ust be the n a tu re of his a ttitu d e if he is to in te g ra te th a t splitoff fragm ent, supp o sin g it w ere ever p a rt of him ? B u t how could it tro u b le h im so m u ch unless it w ere like his left h an d , like the o th e r h a lf of him self? Som ething, therefo re, th a t belongs to him in the deepest sense, com pletes h im , creates o rganic balance, an d yet for som e reason is feared, perhaps because it m akes life com ­ plicated an d sets ap p aren tly im possible tasks? 365 O bviously, th e best way to evade these tasks is to replace them by so m eth in g th a t can rig h tly be called im possible—for instance, th a t w orld of obscenities whose speediest su b lim a tio n is reco m m en d ed by F re u d him self. F reu d , it seems, took these n eu ro tic conjectures q u ite seriously an d thus fell in to th e same trap as the n eu ro tic: on the one h a n d he seeks a w rong tu rn in g a t any price, an d on the o th e r h a n d he c an n o t find the rig h t way o u t of the maze. H e was obviously taken in by the n e u ro tic trick of eu p h em istic disparagement. H e u n d e rv a lu ed the neurosis an d thereby w on th e applause of p atien ts a n d doctors alike, w ho w ant n o th in g b e tte r th a n to h e ar th a t neurosis is “ n o th in g b u t . . .” 366 T h e very w ord “ psychogenic,” how ever, tells us th a t c ertain 171

d is tu rb a n c e s com e fro m th e psyche. U n fo rtu n a te ly th e psyche is n o t a h o rm o n e b u t a w o rld o f a lm o st cosm ic p ro p o rtio n s. S cien­ tific ra tio n a lis m c o m p le tely o v e rlo o k e d th is fact. H a v e psycho­ th e ra p ists ever serio u sly reflected th a t th ey h av e q u ite o th e r fo r­ b ears th a n M esm er, F a ria , L i0 b e a u lt, C h a rc o t, B e rn h e im , J a n e t, F o rel, a n d th e rest? 367 F o r th o u san d s o f years th e m in d o f m a n has w o rrie d a b o u t th e sick soul, p e rh a p s even e a r lie r th a n it d id a b o u t th e sick body. T h e p r o p itia tio n of gods, th e p e rils o f th e so u l a n d its sal­ v a tio n , these are n o t y e ste rd a y ’s p ro b le m s. R e lig io n s a re p sycho­ th e ra p e u tic system s in th e tru e s t sense of th e w ord, a n d o n th e g ra n d e st scale. T h e y express th e w h o le ra n g e o f th e psychic p r o b ­ le m in m ig h ty im ages; th ey a re th e avow al a n d re c o g n itio n o f th e soul, a n d a t th e sam e tim e th e re v e la tio n o f th e s o u l’s n a tu re . F ro m this u n iv e rsa l fo u n d a tio n n o h u m a n so u l is c u t off; o n ly th e in d iv id u a l consciousness th a t has lost its c o n n e c tio n w ith th e p sychic to ta lity re m a in s c a u g h t in th e illu s io n th a t th e so u l is a sm all c irc u m sc rib e d area, a fit s u b je c t fo r “scien tific” th e o riz in g . T h e loss o f this g re a t re la tio n s h ip is th e p rim e evil o f n eu ro sis, a n d th a t is w hy th e n e u ro tic loses his way a m o n g e v er m o re to rtu o u s back-streets o f d u b io u s re p u te , b ecau se he w h o d en ies th e g re a t m u st b la m e th e p etty . In his b o o k T h e F u tu r e o f an Illu s io n F re u d has u n w ittin g ly show n his h a n d . H e w a n ts to p u t a n e n d once a n d fo r all to th e la rg e r asp ect o f th e psychic p h e ­ n o m e n o n , a n d in th e a tte m p t he c o n tin u e s th e b a le fu l w o rk th a t is g o in g o n in every n e u ro tic : d e s tru c tio n o f th e b o n d b e tw ee n m e n a n d th e gods, severance fro m th e u n iv e rsally fe lt a n d k n o w n bases o f th e psyche, a n d h e n ce “ d e n ia l o f th e le ft h a n d ,” o f th e c o u n te r p a r t m a n needs fo r his psychic ex isten ce. 368 L e t us n o t ask w h o has n o t p re a c h e d to d e a f ears! B u t d id G o e th e re a lly w rite his Faust in vain? H a s n ’t F a u st a n e u ro sis as b ig as y o u r fist? F o r su re ly th e d ev il has b e e n p ro v e d n o n ­ ex isten t. C o n se q u e n tly his psychic c o u n te r p a r t d o e sn ’t ex ist e ith e r—a m ystery still to b e u n rid d le d , b o rn o f F a u s t’s d u b io u s in te rn a l secretions! T h a t a t least is th e o p in io n o f M e p h isto p h eles, w h o is h im se lf n o t a lto g e th e r ab o v e re p ro a c h s e x u a lly in c lin e d to b e b ise x u a l, if a n y th in g . T h is d ev il w h o , a c c o rd in g to T h e F u tu r e o f an Illu s io n , does n o t ex ist is y et th e scien tific o b je c t of psychoanalysis, w h ic h g le efu lly b u sies itself w ith his n o n -e x iste n t ways o f th o u g h t. F a u s t’s fate in h e av e n a n d o n e a rth 172

m ay w ell be “ le ft to th e poets,’’ b u t m e an w h ile th e topsy-turvy v ie w 3 of th e h u m a n soul is tu rn e d in to a th eo ry of psychic suffering. 3¾ P sy ch o th erap y today, it seems to m e, still has a vast a m o u n t to u n le a rn a n d re le a rn if it is to d o ev en ro u g h ju stic e to its su bject, th e fu ll ra n g e of the h u m a n psyche. B u t first it m u st cease th in k in g n e u ro tic a lly a n d see th e psychic processes in tru e perspective. N o t o nly th e w hole c o n c e p tio n of n eu ro sis, b u t o u r ideas a b o u t th e psychic fu n c tio n s them selves—fo r in stan ce th e fu n c tio n of d re a m s—sta n d in n e ed of ra d ic al rev isio n . V ery n o ta b le b lu n d e rs have o c cu rred h ere, as w h en th e p erfectly n o rm a l fu n c tio n o f d ream s was view ed fro m th e sam e an g le as disease. I t w ill th e n becom e clear th a t p sy ch o th erap y m ad e a p ­ p ro x im ate ly th e sam e m istake as d id the o ld school of m e d icin e w hen it a tta c k e d th e fever in the b e lie f th a t this was th e n o x io u s agent. 37° I t is th e fate a n d m isfo rtu n e o f p sy ch o th erap y to have b e en b o rn in a n age o f e n lig h te n m e n t, w h en self-d istru st h a d m ade th e o ld c u ltu ra l values inaccessible a n d th e re was n o psychology an y w h ere th a t w e n t m u c h b ey o n d th e level of H e rb a r t o r C o n ­ d illac—n o n e a t an y ra te th a t w o u ld have d o n e a n y th in g like ju stic e to th e co m p le x itie s a n d p e rp le x itie s w ith w hich th e in n o ­ c e n t a n d w h o lly u n p re p a re d physician was su d d en ly faced. In this resp ect w e m u st be g ra te fu l to F re u d , fo r a t least h e c re ate d a c e rta in sense of d ire c tio n in this chaos, a n d gave th e phy sician sufficient c o u rag e to take a case of hysteria seriously, as a scien ­ tific p ro p o sitio n . C ritic ism a fte r th e ev en t is easy e n o u g h , b u t all th e sam e th e re is n o sense in a n e n tire g e n e ra tio n o f doctors go ing to sleep o n F re u d ’s laurels. M u ch has still to b e le a rn t a b o u t th e psyche, a n d o u r especial n e ed today is lib e ra tio n fro m o u tw o rn ideas w hich have seriously re stric te d o u r view o f the psyche as a w hole. 3 ["Afterbild."—T

r a n s .]

Ill PREFACE T O "ESSAYS O N C O N T E M P O R A R Y E V E N T S ’ W OTAN A FTER T H E CATASTRO PH E T H E F IG H T W IT H T H E SH A D O W E PIL O G U E T O “ESSAYS O N C O N T E M P O R A R Y E V E N T S

PR EFA CE T O "ESSAYS O N C O N T E M P O R A R Y E V E N T S ” 1 M edical p sychotherapy, fo r p ra c tica l reasons, has to d eal w ith th e w hole o f th e psyche. T h e re fo re it is b o u n d to com e to term s w ith all those factors, biolo g ical as w ell as social an d m e n ta l, w h ich have a v ita l influence o n psychic life. W e a re liv in g in tim es of g re a t d is ru p tio n : p o litic a l passions are aflam e, in te rn a l u p h eav als have b ro u g h t n a tio n s to th e b rin k of chaos, a n d the very fo u n d a tio n s o f o u r W e lta n s c h a u u n g are sh attered . T h is c ritic a l state o f th in g s has such a tre m e n d o u s in ­ fluence o n th e psychic life of th e in d iv id u a l th a t th e d o c to r m u st follow its effects w ith m o re th a n u su al a tte n tio n . T h e sto rm of events does n o t sw eep d o w n u p o n h im o n ly fro m th e g re a t w o rld ou tside; h e feels th e v iolence o f its im p a c t ev en in th e q u ie t of his c o n su ltin g -ro o m a n d in th e privacy o f th e m ed ical c o n su lta ­ tio n . As h e has a re sp o n sib ility tow ards his p a tie n ts, h e c a n n o t afford to w ith d ra w to th e peacefu l islan d o f u n d is tu rb e d scien ­ tific w ork, b u t m u st c o n sta n tly descend in to th e a re n a of w o rld events, in o rd e r to jo in in th e b a ttle of co n flictin g passions a n d o p in io n s. W e re h e to re m a in aloof fro m th e tu m u lt, th e calam ity of his tim e w o u ld re a ch h im o nly fro m afar, a n d his p a tie n t’s su f­ ferin g w o u ld fin d n e ith e r e ar n o r u n d e rs ta n d in g . H e w o u ld be a t a loss to know h ow to talk to h im , a n d to h e lp h im o u t of his iso lation. F o r th is reason th e psychologist c a n n o t av o id co m in g to grips w ith c o n te m p o ra ry history, even if his very soul sh rin k s fro m th e p o litic a l u p ro a r, th e ly in g p ro p a g a n d a, a n d th e ja rrin g speeches of th e dem agogues. W e n e ed n o t m e n tio n his d u tie s as '■[O riginally p u b lis h e d as th e V orw ort to A u fsa tze zu r Z eitgeschichte (Z urich, 1946). T ra n s, by E lizab eth W elsh in Essays o n C o n tem p o ra ry E ve n ts (L ondon, 1947); th is version h as been co nsulted. T h e la tte r v o lu m e co n ta in e d th e fo u r p ap e rs th a t follow th is p refac e a n d tw o m o re th a t w ere p u b lis h e d in Vol. 16 o f th e Coll. W orks: "P sy ch o th erap y T o d a y ” (pars, zisff.) a n d “ P sy ch o th erap y a n d a P hilosophy o f L ife" (pars. i75ff.). Also see "M a rg in a lia o n C o n tem p o rary E v en ts” (*945). c w l8 > P ars- 1349^·— E d i t o r s .]

a citizen, w hich c o n fro n t h im w ith a sim ilar task. As a physician, he has a h ig h er o b lig atio n to h u m a n ity in this respect. F rom tim e to tim e, th erefo re, I have felt obliged to step b e­ yond th e usual b o u n d s of m y profession. T h e ex p erience of the psychologist is of a ra th e r special k in d , a n d it seem ed to m e th a t the general p u b lic m ig h t find it useful to h ear his p o in t of view. T h is was h ard ly a far-fetched conclusion, for surely the m ost naive of laym en could n o t fail to see th a t m any co n tem p o rary figures a n d events w ere positively asking for psychological elu ci­ d atio n . W ere psychopathic sym ptom s ever m ore conspicuous th a n in th e co n tem p o rary p o litical scene? I t has n ev er b e en m y w ish to m eddle in th e p o litical ques­ tions of th e day. B u t in th e course of the years I have w ritte n a few papers w hich give m y reactio n s to c u rre n t events. T h e p resen t book contains a co llection of these occasional essays, all w ritte n betw een 1936 a n d 1946. I t is n a tu ra l en o u g h th a t my th o u g h ts sh o u ld have been especially concerned w ith G erm any, w hich has been a p ro b lem to m e ever since the first W o rld W ar. M y statem ents have ev id en tly led to all m a n n e r of m isu n d e r­ standings, w hich are chiefly d ue, n o d o u b t, to th e fact th a t my psychological p o in t of view strikes m any people as new and th erefo re strange. In stead of em b ark in g u p o n lengthy a rg u ­ m en ts in an a tte m p t to clear u p these m isunderstandings, I have fo u n d it sim p ler to collect all th e passages in m y o th e r w ritings w hich deal w ith the same th em e an d to p u t them in an epilogue.2 T h e read er w ill th u s be in a p o sitio n to get a clear p ictu re of th e facts for him self. 2 [ I n f r a , p a rs . 458ff.J

W OTAN1 E n G e rm a n ie n a is tro n t diverses sectes, S’a p p ro c h a n s fo rt d e l'h e u r e u x p a g a n ism e: L e coeur c a p tif e t p e tite s recep tes F e r o n t r e to u r k p a y e r la v ray e dism e. —P r o p h e tie s de M a is tre M i c h e l N o s t r a d a m u s , 1555 37 *

W h e n w e l o o k b a c k to th e t im e b e f o r e 1914, w e f in d o u r ­ selves liv in g i n a w o r l d o f e v e n ts w h ic h w o u l d h a v e b e e n i n c o n ­ c e iv a b le b e f o r e t h e w a r. W e w e r e e v e n b e g i n n i n g to r e g a r d w a r b e tw e e n c iv iliz e d n a ti o n s as a f a b le , t h i n k i n g t h a t s u c h a n a b ­ s u r d ity w o u l d b e c o m e less a n d less p o s s ib le i n o u r r a t i o n a l , i n t e r ­ n a ti o n a ll y o r g a n iz e d w o r ld . A n d w h a t c a m e a f t e r t h e w a r w as a v e r i t a b l e w itc h e s ’ s a b b a th . E v e r y w h e r e f a n ta s tic r e v o l u t io n s , v io ­ l e n t a lt e r a t io n s o f t h e m a p , r e v e r s io n s i n p o litic s to m e d ie v a l o r e v e n a n t i q u e p r o to ty p e s , t o t a l i t a r i a n s ta te s t h a t e n g u l f t h e i r n e ig h b o u r s a n d o u t d o a ll p r e v io u s th e o c r a c ie s i n t h e i r a b s o lu t is t c la im s , p e r s e c u ti o n s o f C h r i s t i a n s a n d J e w s , w h o le s a le p o l it ic a l m u r d e r , a n d f in a lly w e h a v e w itn e s s e d a l i g h t - h e a r t e d p i r a t ic a l r a i d o n a p e a c e f u l, h a lf - c iv iliz e d p e o p le .2 37* W i t h s u c h g o in g s o n i n th e w id e w o r ld i t is n o t i n t h e le a s t 1 [F irst p u b lis h e d as "W o ta n ," N e u e Schw eizer R u n d s c h a u (Z urich), n.s., I l l (M arch, 1936), 657-69. R e p u b lish e d in A u fsa tze zu r Z eitg esch ich te (Z urich, 1946), 1-23. T ra n s , by B a rb a ra H a n n a h in Essays on C o n tem p o ra ry E ven ts (L o n d o n , ! 947). 1-16; th is version has been con su lted . T h e a u th o r ad d e d fo o tn o tes 3, 4, 15. an d 16 (first p ar.) to th e L o n d o n ed n . M otto, tra n s. by H . C. R o b erts: " I n G erm an y sh a ll divers sects arise. C om ing very n e a r to h a p p y pag an ism . T h e h e a rt c a p tiv a te d a n d sm all receivings Shall o p e n th e g a te to p ay th e tr u e tith e ." — E d i t o r s .]

2 Abyssinia.

373

374

s u rp ris in g th a t th e re s h o u ld b e e q u a lly c u rio u s m a n ife sta tio n s o n a s m a lle r scale in o th e r spheres. In th e re a lm o f p h ilo so p h y we shall have to w a it som e tim e b e fo re a n y o n e is a b le to assess th e k in d o f age w e a re liv in g in. B u t in th e sp h e re o f re lig io n we c an see a t once th a t som e very sig n ific a n t th in g s hav e b e e n h a p ­ p e n in g . W e n e e d feel n o s u rp ris e th a t in R u ssia th e c o lo u rfu l s p le n d o u rs of th e E a stern O rth o d o x C h u rc h h av e b e e n s u p e r­ sed ed by th e M o v e m e n t o f th e G odless—in d e e d , o n e b re a th e d a sigh of re lie f on eself w h e n o n e e m erg ed fro m th e haze of a n O rth o d o x c h u rc h w ith its m u ltitu d e of lam p s a n d e n te r e d an h o n e st m o sq u e, w h e re th e s u b lim e a n d in v isib le o m n ip re se n c e o f G o d was n o t c ro w d ed o u t by a s u p e rflu ity o f sacred p a ra ­ p h e rn a lia . T asteless a n d p itia b ly u n in te llig e n t as it is, a n d h o w ­ ev er d e p lo ra b le th e low s p iritu a l level of th e “scie n tific ” re a c tio n , it was in e v ita b le th a t n in e te e n th -c e n tu ry “ scien tific” e n lig h te n ­ m e n t sh o u ld o n e day d aw n in R ussia. B u t w h a t is m o re th a n c u rio u s —in d e e d , p iq u a n t to a d e g re e — is th a t a n a n c ie n t go d of sto rm a n d frenzy, th e lo n g q u ie s c e n t W o ta n , sh o u ld aw ake, lik e a n e x tin c t v o lcan o , to n e w activ ity , in a civ ilized c o u n try th a t h a d lo n g b e e n su p p o se d to h av e o u t­ g ro w n th e M id d le Ages. W e have seen h im c o m e to life in th e G e rm a n Y o u th M o v em e n t, a n d r ig h t a t th e b e g in n in g th e b lo o d o f several sh eep w as sh ed in h o n o u r o f his re s u rre c tio n . A rm e d w ith ru ck sack a n d lu te , b lo n d y o u th s, a n d so m etim es g irls as w ell, w ere to b e seen as restless w a n d e re rs o n ev ery ro a d fro m th e N o rth C a p e to Sicily, fa ith fu l v o taries o f th e ro v in g god. L a te r, tow ard s th e e n d o f th e W e im a r R e p u b lic , th e w a n d e rin g ro le was ta k e n o v e r by th e th o u sa n d s o f u n e m p lo y e d , w h o w ere to b e m e t w ith ev ery w h ere o n th e ir aim less jo u rn e y s. By 1933 th e y w a n d e re d n o lo n g e r, b u t m a rc h e d in th e ir h u n d re d s of th o u san d s. T h e H itle r m o v e m e n t lite ra lly b ro u g h t th e w h o le of G e rm a n y to its feet, fro m five-year-olds to v e teran s, a n d p r o ­ d u c e d th e spectacle o f a n a tio n m ig ra tin g fro m o n e p lace to a n ­ o th e r. W o ta n th e w a n d e re r was o n th e m ove. H e c o u ld b e seen, lo o k in g r a th e r sh am efaced , in th e m e etin g -h o u se o f a sect of sim p le folk in N o rth G e rm a n y , d isg u ise d as C h ris t s ittin g o n a w h ite horse. I d o n o t k n o w if these p e o p le w ere a w are of W o ta n ’s a n c ie n t c o n n e c tio n w ith th e figures o f C h ris t a n d D ionysus, b u t it is n o t very p ro b a b le . W o ta n is a restless w a n d e re r w ho c reates u n re s t a n d stirs u p 180

strife, n o w h ere, n o w there, and w orks m agic. H e was so o n ch an ged by C h ristia n ity in to the d ev il, and o n ly liv ed o n in fad­ in g local trad itio n s as a g h o stly h u n te r w h o was seen w ith h is retin u e, flick erin g lik e a w ill o ’ th e w isp th rou gh th e storm y n igh t. In th e M id d le A ges th e ro le o f th e restless w an d erer was taken over by A hasu eru s, the W a n d erin g Jew , w h ich is n o t a Jew ish b u t a C h ristian leg en d . T h e m o tif o f th e w an d erer w h o has n o t accep ted C hrist was p rojected o n th e Jew s, in the sam e way as w e alw ays red iscover ou r u n co n scio u s p sych ic co n ten ts in other p eo p le. A t an y rate the c o in c id en ce o f a n ti-S em itism w ith the reaw ak en in g o f W o ta n is a p sy ch o lo g ica l su b tlety th at m ay perhaps b e w orth m en tio n in g . 375 T h e G erm an y o u th s w h o celeb ra ted the so lstice w ith sheepsacrifices w ere n o t th e first to hear a r u stlin g in the p rim eval forest o f th e u n con sciou s. T h e y w ere a n ticip a ted by N ietzsch e, Schuler, Stefan G eorge, a n d L u d w ig K lages.3 T h e literary trad i­ tio n o f th e R h in e la n d an d the co u n try sou th o f th e M a in has a classical stam p th at ca n n o t easily b e g o t rid of; every in terp reta ­ tion o f in to x ic a tio n an d ex u b era n ce is ap t to b e tak en back to classical m od els, to D io n y su s, to th e p u e r a etern u s and the cos­ m o g o n ic E ros.4 N o d o u b t it sou n d s b etter to acad em ic ears to in terp ret th ese th in g s as D io n y su s, b u t W o ta n m ig h t b e a m ore S E ver since N ietzsche (1844-1900) th e re has been consistent em p h asis o n th e “‘D io n y sian ” aspect o f life in co n tra st to its “A p o llo n ia n ” o p p o site.-S in ce “T h e B irth of T ra g e d y ” (1872), th e d ark , ea rth y , fem in in e side, w ith its m a n tic an d o rg iastic characteristics, has possessed th e im a g in a tio n of p h ilo so p h ers a n d poets. Irra tio n a lity g ra d u a lly cam e to be reg a rd e d as th e id eal; th is is fo u n d , for ex am p le, all th ro u g h th e research o f A lfred S ch u ler (d. 1923) in to th e m ystery relig io n s, an d p a rtic u la rly in th e w ritin g s o f K lages (b. 1872 [d. 1956]), w h o ex p o u n d e d th e p h ilosophy of "irra tio n a lis m .” T o Klages, logos a n d consciousness are th e d e ­ stroyers o f creative preconscious life. In these w riters we w itness th e o rig in o f a g ra d u a l reje ctio n of rea lity a n d a n eg a tio n of life as it is. T h is leads in th e en d to a cu lt o f ecstasy, c u lm in a tin g in th e self-dissolution of consciousness in d e a th , w hich m e an t, to th e m , th e co n q u e st of m a te ria l lim ita tio n s. T h e p o etry o f S tefan G eorge (1868-1933) com b in es elem en ts o f classical civiliza­ tio n, m edieval C h ristian ity , a n d o rie n ta l m ysticism . G eorge d e lib erately attac k ed n in e te e n th - a n d tw e n tie th -c e n tu ry ra tio n a lism . H is a risto cratic m essage of m ys­ tical b ea u ty a n d of an esoteric con cep tio n of h isto ry h a d a d eep in fluence o n G e r­ m an y o u th . H is w ork has been e x p lo ite d by u n sc ru p u lo u s p o litician s fo r p r o p a ­ g an d a purposes. 4 V om kosm ogonischen Eros is th e title of o n e of K lages’ m a in w orks (first p u b . 1922).

c o rre c t in te rp re ta tio n . H e is th e g o d o f sto rm a n d frenzy, th e u n le a s h e r of passions a n d th e lu s t of b a ttle ; m o re o v e r h e is a s u p e rla tiv e m a g ic ia n a n d a r tis t in illu s io n w h o is v e rsed in a ll secrets o f a n o c c u lt n a tu re . 376 N ie tz sc h e ’s case is c e rta in ly a p e c u lia r o n e. H e h a d n o k n o w l­ edge o f G e rm a n ic lite ra tu re ; h e d isco v ered th e “ c u ltu r a l P h i­ lis tin e ” ; a n d th e a n n o u n c e m e n t th a t “ G o d is d e a d ” le d to Z a ra th u s tra ’s m e e tin g w ith a n u n k n o w n g o d in u n e x p e c te d fo rm , w h o a p p ro a c h e d h im so m etim es as a n e n em y a n d so m e­ tim es d isg u ised as Z a ra th u s tra h im self. Z a ra th u s tra , to o , was a so othsayer, a m a g ic ia n , a n d th e sto rm -w in d : A nd like a w ind shall I come to blow am ong them , an d w ith my sp irit shall take away the b reath of th e ir spirit; thus my fu tu re wills it. T ru ly , a strong w ind is Z arathustra to all th a t are low; an d this counsel gives he to his enemies and to all th a t spit and spew: “Beware of spittin g against th e w ind.” 5 377

A n d w h e n Z a ra th u s tra d re a m e d th a t h e was g u a rd ia n o f th e graves in th e “ lo n e m o u n ta in fo rtress of d e a th ,” a n d was m a k in g a m ig h ty e ffo rt to o p e n th e gates, su d d e n ly A ro arin g w ind tore the gates asunder; w histling, shrieking, and keening, it cast a black coffin before me. A nd am id the ro arin g and w histling and shrieking the coffin b u rst open and spouted a thousand peals of laughter.

378

T h e d iscip le w h o in te rp re te d th e d re a m sa id to Z a ra th u s tra : A re you not yourself the w ind w ith shrill w histling, w hich bursts open the gates of the fortress of death? A re you not yourself the coffin filled w ith life’s gay m alice and angel-grimaces? ®

379

I n 1863 o r 1864, *n h*s p o e m “ T o th e U n k n o w n G o d ,” N ietzsch e h a d w ritte n : I shall an d will know thee, U nknow n O ne, W ho searchest o u t the depths of my soul, A nd blow est th ro u g h my life like a storm , U ngraspable, and yet my kinsm anl I shall an d w ill know thee, an d serve thee. B T h u s S p a ke Z a ra th u stra , tran s. by K a u fm a n n , p . 211 (m od.), e Ib id ., p . 247 (m od.).

}8o

T w e n ty years later, in his “ M istral Song,” h e w rote: M istral wind, chaser of clouds. K iller of gloom, sweeper of the skies, R aging storm-wind, how I love thee! Are we not both the first-fruits O f the same womb, forever predestined T o the same fate? 7

381

I n th e d ith y ra m b k n o w n as “A ria d n e ’s L a m e n t,” N ietzsche is com pletely th e v ictim of th e hun ter-g o d : Stretched out, shuddering, Like a half-dead thing whose feet are warmed, Shaken by unknow n fevers, Shivering w ith piercing icy frost arrows, H u n ted by thee, O thought, U nutterable! Veiled! horrible one! T h o u huntsm an behind the clouds. Struck down by thy lightning bolt, T h o u mocking eye that stares at me from the dark! T h u s I lie. W rithing, twisting, torm ented W ith all eternal tortures, Sm itten By thee, cruel huntsm an. T h o u unknow n—God! 8

38*

T h is re m a rk a b le im age o f th e h u n te r-g o d is n o t a m e re d ith y ra m b ic figure of speech b u t is based o n a n ex p erien ce w hich N ietzsche h a d w hen he was fifteen years old, a t P fo rta. I t is described in a book by N ietzsche’s sister, E lizab eth FoersterN ietzsche.9 As he was w an d erin g a b o u t in a gloom y w ood a t n ig h t, he was te rrified by a “ b lo o d -c u rd lin g sh rie k fro m a n e ig h ­ b o u rin g lu n a tic asylum ,” a n d soon afterw ard s he cam e face to face w ith a h u n tsm a n w hose “ features w ere w ild a n d u n c a n n y .” S etting his w histle to his lips “ in a valley su rro u n d e d by w ild scru b ,” th e h u n tsm a n “ blew such a shrill b la st” th a t N ietzsche lost consciousness—b u t w oke u p a g ain in Pforta. I t was a n ig h t­ m are. I t is significant th a t in his d re a m N ietzsche, w ho in re a lity I W erkej V, p p . 457!. an d 495; trans. by R.F.C.H. 8 T hus Spake Zarathustra, K aufm ann trans., p. 365. * D er xverdende Nietzsche, pp . 84ft.

in te n d e d to go to E isleben, L u th e r ’s tow n, discussed w ith the h u n tsm a n th e q u estio n of going instead to “T e u ts c h e n th a l” (Valley o f th e G erm ans). N o one w ith ears to h e a r can m isu n d e r­ stan d th e shrill w h istlin g of th e storm -god in the n o c tu rn a l wood. 383 W as it really on ly th e classical p h ilo lo g ist in N ietzsche th a t led to the god b ein g called D ionysus instead of W o ta n —o r was it perh ap s d u e to his fatefu l m eetin g w ith W agner? 384 In his R eich o hn e R a u m , w hich was first p u b lish ed in 1919, B ru n o Goetz saw th e secret of com ing events in G erm any in th e form of a very strange vision. I have never fo rg o tten this little book, for it struck m e at th e tim e as a forecast of th e G erm an w eather. I t an ticip ates th e conflict betw een th e realm of ideas a n d life, betw een W o ta n ’s d u a l n a tu re as a god of storm a n d a god of secret m usings. W o tan d isap p eared w h en his oaks fell a n d app eared again w hen th e C h ristian G od proved too w eak to save C h risten d o m from fra tricid a l slaughter. W h e n th e H oly F a th e r a t R om e co u ld only im p o ten tly lam en t before G od the fate of th e grex segregatus, th e one-eyed old h u n te r, on th e edge of the G erm an forest, lau g h ed a n d saddled Sleipnir. 385 W e are always convinced th a t th e m o d ern w orld is a reason­ able w orld, basing o u r o p in io n o n econom ic, p o litical, a n d psy­ chological factors. B u t if we m ay forget for a m o m en t th a t we are living in th e year of O ut L o rd 1936, an d , laying aside o u r w ell-m eaning, all-too-hum an reasonableness, m ay b u rd e n G od o r th e gods w ith th e resp o n sib ility for co n tem p o rary events in ­ stead of m an, we w o u ld find W o tan q u ite su itab le as a causal hypothesis. In fact I v e n tu re the h eretical suggestion th a t the u n fath o m a b le dep th s of W o ta n ’s ch aracter e x p lain m ore of N a­ tio n al Socialism th a n all th re e reaso nable factors p u t together. T h e re is n o d o u b t th a t each of these factors explains an im ­ p o rta n t aspect of w h at is going on in G erm any, b u t W o tan ex­ plains yet m ore. H e is p artic u la rly en lig h te n in g in reg ard to a g en eral p h en o m en o n w hich is so strange to anybody n o t a G er­ m an th a t it rem ain s in co m p reh en sib le even after th e deepest reflection. 386 P erhaps we m ay sum u p this g en eral p h en o m en o n as Ergriffe n h e it—a. state of b ein g seized o r possessed. T h e term postulates n o t only a n E rgriffener (one w ho is seized) b u t also an Ergreifer (one w ho seizes). W o tan is an Ergreifer of m en, and, unless one 184

wishes to deify H itle r—w hich has in d eed actually h ap p en ed —he is really th e only ex p lan atio n . It is tru e th at W otan shares this q u ality w ith his cousin D ionysus, b u t Dionysus seems to have exercised his influence m ainly o n w om en. T h e m aenads w ere a species of fem ale storm -troopers, and, according to m ythical re ­ ports, w ere dangerous enough. W o tan confined him self to the berserkers, w ho fo u n d th e ir vocation as the B lackshirts of m ythical kings. 587 A m in d th a t is still childish th inks of the gods as m eta­ physical en tities ex isting in th e ir ow n rig h t, o r else regards them as playful o r su p erstitio u s inventions. From eith er p o in t of view the parallel b etw een W o tan redivivus and the social, political, an d psychic storm th a t is shaking G erm any m ig h t have a t least the value of a parable. B u t since the gods are w ith o u t d o u b t personifications of psychic forces, to assert th eir m etaphysical existence is as m u ch an in tellectu al p resu m p tio n as the o p in io n th at they co u ld ever be invented. N o t th at “psychic forces” have any th in g to do w ith th e conscious m ind, fond as we are of play­ ing w ith the idea th at consciousness a n d psyche are identical. T h is is only a n o th e r piece of in tellectu al presum ption. “ Psychic forces” have far m ore to do w ith the realm of the unconscious. O u r m ania for ra tio n a l explan atio n s obviously has its roots in o u r fear of m etaphysics, for the two were always hostile brothers. H ence an y th in g u n ex p ected th a t approaches us from th a t d ark realm is regarded e ith e r as com ing from outside an d therefore as real, o r else as an h allu cin atio n an d therefore n o t true. T h e idea th at an y th in g could be real o r tru e w hich does not come from o utside has hardly begun to daw n on contem porary m an. 388 F or th e sake of b e tte r u n d erstan d in g a n d to avoid prejudice, we could of course dispense w ith the nam e “W o tan ” an d speak instead o f th e fu ro r teutonicus. B u t we should only be saying the same th in g an d n o t as well, for the fu ro r in this case is a m ere psychologizing of W o tan an d tells us n o m ore th an th at the G erm ans are in a state of “ fury.” W e thus lose sight of the m ost p ecu liar featu re of this w hole phenom enon, nam ely, the dram atic aspect of the Ergreifer an d the Ergriffener. T h e im ­ pressive th in g a b o u t the G erm an phenom enon is th at one m an, who is obviously “possessed,” has infected a w hole n atio n to such an ex ten t th a t ev ery th in g is set in m otion an d has started ro ll­ ing on its course tow ards p erd itio n . 185

589

I t seem s to m e th a t W o ta n h its th e m a rk as a n h y p o th esis. A p p a re n tly h e re a lly was o n ly asleep in th e KyflEhauser m o u n ­ ta in u n til th e rav en s c alled h im a n d a n n o u n c e d th e b re a k of day. H e is a fu n d a m e n ta l a ttr ib u te o f th e G e rm a n psyche, a n irr a tio n a l psychic fa c to r w hich acts o n th e h ig h p re ssu re o f civ i­ liz a tio n lik e a cyclone a n d blow s it aw ay. D e sp ite th e ir c ra n k i­ ness, th e W o tan -w o rsh ip p ers seem to have ju d g e d th in g s m o re c o rre c tly th a n th e w o rsh ip p e rs o f reaso n . A p p a re n tly ev ery o n e h a d fo rg o tte n th a t W o ta n is a G e rm a n ic d a tu m of first im p o r­ tan ce, th e tru e s t e x p ressio n a n d u n su rp a sse d p e rso n ific a tio n o f a fu n d a m e n ta l q u a lity th a t is p a rtic u la rly c h a ra c te ristic o f th e G e rm a n s. H o u sto n S te w a rt C h a m b e rla in is a sy m p to m w h ich aro u ses su sp icio n th a t o th e r v e ile d gods m ay b e sle e p in g else­ w h ere. T h e em phasis o n th e G e rm a n ic race (v u lg a rly called “A ry a n ”), th e G e rm a n ic h e rita g e , b lo o d a n d soil, th e W agalaw eia songs , 10 th e rid e o f th e V alkyries, Jesu s as a b lo n d a n d b lu e-ey ed h e ro , th e G re e k m o th e r o f St. P a u l, th e d e v il as a n in ­ te rn a tio n a l A lb e ric h in Jew ish o r M aso n ic guise, th e N o rd ic a u ro ra b o realis as th e lig h t o f c iv iliz atio n , th e in fe rio r M e d ite r­ r a n e a n races—all this is th e in d isp e n sa b le scenery fo r th e d ra m a th a t is ta k in g p lace a n d a t b o tto m th e y all m e a n th e sam e th in g : a god has ta k e n possession o f th e G e rm a n s a n d th e ir h o u se is filled w ith a “ m ig h ty ru s h in g w in d .” I t was so o n a fte r H itle r seized pow er, if I a m n o t m ista k e n , th a t a c a rto o n a p p e a re d in P u n c h o f a ra v in g b e rs e rk e r te a rin g h im se lf free fro m h is b o n d s. A h u rr ic a n e has b ro k e n loose in G e rm a n y w h ile w e s till b elie v e i t is fine w e a th e r. 39 ° T h in g s a re c o m p a ra tiv e ly q u ie t in S w itzerlan d , th o u g h occa­ sio n a lly th e re is a p u ff o f w in d fro m th e n o rth o r so u th . Som e­ tim es i t has a slig h tly o m in o u s so u n d , so m etim es it w h isp ers so h arm lessly o r even id e a listic a lly th a t n o o n e is a la rm e d . “ L e t sle e p in g dogs lie ”—w e m a n ag e to g e t a lo n g p re tty w ell w ith th is p ro v e rb ia l w isdom . I t is so m etim es said th a t th e Swiss a re s in g u ­ la rly averse to m a k in g a p ro b le m o f them selves. I m u s t r e b u t th is a cc u satio n : th e Swiss d o have th e ir p ro b le m s b u t th e y w o u ld n o t a d m it it fo r a n y th in g in th e w o rld , even th o u g h th e y see w hich w ay th e w in d is b lo w in g . W e th u s p ay o u r tr ib u te to th e tim e 10 [A fter th e m e an in g less re fra in s su n g b y th e R h in e m a id en s in W a g n e r’s R in g "W eia! Waga! Wagala w e ia !" etc.—E d i t o r s ·!

c y c le :

of sto rm a n d stress in G erm an y , b u t w e n e v e r m e n tio n it, a n d this en ab les us to feel vastly su p erio r. 391 I t is ab o v e all th e G erm an s w ho have a n o p p o rtu n ity , p e r­ haps u n iq u e in h istory, to look in to th e ir ow n h earts a n d to le a rn w h at those p e rils o f th e soul w ere fro m w h ich C h ris tia n ity trie d to rescue m a n k in d . G e rm a n y is a la n d of s p iritu a l catastro p h es, w here n a tu re n e v e r m akes m o re th a n a p re te n ce o f peace w ith w o rld -ru lin g reason. T h e d is tu rb e r o f th e peace is a w in d th a t blows in to E u ro p e fro m A sia’s vastness, sw eep in g in o n a w ide fro n t fro m T h ra c e to th e B altic, sca tte rin g th e n a tio n s b e fo re it like d ry leaves, o r in s p irin g th o u g h ts th a t shake th e w o rld to its fo u n d atio n s. I t is a n e le m e n ta l D ionysus b re a k in g in to th e A p o llo n ia n o rd e r. T h e ro u se r o f th is te m p e st is n a m e d W o ta n , a n d w e can le a rn a good deal a b o u t h im fro m th e p o litic a l co n ­ fu sion a n d s p iritu a l u p h e a v a l he has caused th ro u g h o u t history. F o r a m o re ex ac t in v e stig atio n of his c h arac te r, h ow ever, we m u st go back to th e age of m yths, w hich d id n o t e x p la in every­ th in g in term s o f m a n a n d his lim ite d capacities b u t so u g h t th e d e ep e r cause in th e psyche a n d its a u to n o m o u s pow ers. M a n ’s earliest in tu itio n s p e rso n ified these pow ers as gods, a n d d e ­ scrib ed th e m in th e m yths w ith g re a t care a n d c irc u m sta n tia lity a cco rd in g to th e ir v ario u s characters. T h is c o u ld b e d o n e th e m o re re a d ily o n a c c o u n t o f the firm ly e stab lish ed p rim o rd ia l types o r im ages w h ich a re in n a te in th e u n co n scio u s o f m an y races a n d exercise a d ire c t in flu en ce u p o n them . B ecause th e b e ­ h a v io u r o f a race takes o n its specific c h a ra c te r fro m its u n d e r­ ly ing im ages w e can speak o f a n a rch ety p e “ W o ta n ." 11 As a n a u to n o m o u s psychic factor, W o ta n p ro d u ces effects in th e col­ lective life of a p e o p le a n d th e re b y reveals his o w n n a tu re . F o r W o ta n has a p e c u lia r biology of his ow n, q u ite a p a r t fro m th e n a tu re o f m an . I t is o n ly fro m tim e to tim e th a t in d iv id u a ls fall u n d e r th e irresistib le in flu en ce o f th is u n co n scio u s factor. W h e n i t is q u iescen t, o n e is n o m o re aw are of th e arc h ety p e W o ta n th a n o f a la te n t epilepsy. C o u ld th e G e rm a n s w h o w ere a d u lts in 1 9 1 4 have foreseen w h a t they w o u ld be today? Such am azin g tra n sfo rm a tio n s a re th e effect of th e go d of w in d , th a t “ b lo w e th w here it liste th , a n d th o u h earest th e so u n d th ereo f, b u t can st 11 O ne should read w hat B runo Goetz (Deutsche D ichtung, pp. 36R. an d has to say ab o u t O din as th e G erm an w anderer-god. U nfortunately I only read this book after I h ad finished my article.

39*

393

394

n o t tell w hence it com eth, n o r w h ith e r it goeth.” I t seizes every­ th in g in its p ath an d overthrow s everything th a t is n o t firm ly rooted. W h en the w ind blows it shakes everything th a t is in ­ secure, w h eth er w ith o u t o r w ith in . M artin N in ck has recently p u b lish ed a m onograph 12 w hich is a m ost welcom e a d d itio n to o u r know ledge of W o ta n ’s n atu re. X h e read er need n o t fear th a t this b ook is n o th in g b u t a scien­ tific study w ritten w ith academ ic aloofness from th e subject. C ertain ly the rig h t to scientific o b jectivity is fully preserved, and the m aterial has been collected w ith ex trao rd in ary thoroughness a n d presented in u n u su ally clear form . B u t over a n d above all this one feels th at the a u th o r is vitally interested in it, th a t the ch o rd of W o tan is v ib ra tin g in h im too. T h is is n o criticism —on the co n trary it is one of the chief m erits of the book, w hich w ith ­ o u t this enthusiasm m ig h t easily have degenerated in to a tedious catalogue. N in ck sketches a really m agnificent p o rtra it of the G erm an archetype W otan. H e describes him in ten chapters, using all the available sources, as the berserker, the god of storm , the w an­ derer, the w arrior, th e W unsch- an d M in n e-g od, the lo rd of the dead an d of th e E in herier , 13 th e m aster of secret know ledge, the m agician, an d the god of the poets. N e ith e r the Valkyries n o r th e Fylgja 14 are forgotten, for they form p a rt of the m ytho­ logical back g ro u n d an d fateful significance of W o tan . N in ck ’s in q u iry in to the nam e an d its origin is p articu larly instructive. H e shows th a t W o tan is n o t only a god of rage an d frenzy w ho em bodies th e in stin ctu al an d em otional aspect of the u n co n ­ scious. Its in tu itiv e an d in sp irin g side also m anifests itself in him , for he und erstan d s the ru n es a n d can in te rp re t fate. T h e R om ans identified ΛVotan w ith M ercury, b u t his c h a r­ acter does n o t really correspond to any R om an or G reek god, alth o u g h th ere are certain resem blances. H e is a w an d erer like M ercury, for instance, rules over the dead like P lu to a n d Kronos, an d is connected w ith Dionysus by his em otional frenzy, p ar­ ticu larly in its m an tic aspect. I t is su rp risin g th a t N in ck does n o t m e n tio n H erm es, the god of revelation, w ho as p n e u m a and 12 W odan u n d germ anisch er Schicksalsglaube. 13 [W unsch, m agical wish; M in n e, rem em brance, love; E inh erter, th e dead heroes in V alh alla (M eyers K on versation s-L exikon ).—Ex>novts.] 14 [F ylgja, attendant spirit in the form o f an anim al (H astings, E ncyclopedia).]

nous is associated w ith the w ind. H e w o u ld be th e co n n ectin g lin k w ith the C h ristia n p n e u m a an d the m iracle of P entecost. As P o im an d res (th e s h e p h e rd of m en) H erm es is a n E rgreifer like W o tan . N in c k rig h tly p o ints o u t th a t D ionysus a n d the o th e r G reek gods always re m a in e d u n d e r th e su p rem e a u th o rity of Zeus, w hich in d icates a fu n d a m e n ta l difference b etw een the G reek a n d th e G e rm a n ic te m p e ram en t. N in c k assum es an in n e r affinity betw een W o ta n a n d K ronos, a n d th e la tte r's d efeat m ay perhaps be a sign th a t th e W o tan-arch ety p e was once overcom e and sp lit u p in p re h isto ric times. A t all events, th e G e rm a n ic god rep resen ts a to ta lity o n a very p rim itiv e level, a psycho­ logical c o n d itio n in w hich m a n ’s w ill was alm o st id en tic al w ith the g o d ’s a n d e n tire ly a t his m ercy. B u t th e G reeks h a d gods w ho h elp ed m an against o th e r gods; indeed , A ll-F ath er Zeus him self is n o t fa r from the ideal of a b en ev o len t, e n lig h te n e d despot. 395 I t was n o t in W o ta n ’s n a tu re to lin g e r o n a n d show signs of old age. H e sim ply d isap p eared w hen the tim es tu rn e d against him , a n d re m a in e d in v isible for m ore th a n a th o u san d years, w ork in g anonym ously a n d in d irectly . A rchetypes a re like riv e r­ beds w hich d ry u p w hen th e w ater deserts them , b u t w hich it can find ag ain a t any tim e. A n arch ety p e is like a n old w ater­ course alo n g w hich the w ater o f life has flowed fo r cen tu ries, d igging a d e ep c h a n n e l fo r itself. T h e lo n g e r it has flowed in this c h an n e l the m o re likely it is th a t so o n er o r la te r th e w ater w ill re tu rn to its old bed. T h e life of the in d iv id u a l as a m e m b e r of society a n d p a rtic u la rly as p a rt of th e State m ay b e re g u la te d like a canal, b u t th e life of natio n s is a g re a t ru s h in g riv e r w hich is u tte rly b ey o n d h u m a n c o n tro l, in th e h an d s of O n e w ho has always b e en stro n g e r th a n m en. T h e L eague of N atio n s, w hich was supposed to possess s u p ra n a tio n a l a u th o rity , is re g a rd ed by some as a c h ild in need of care a n d p ro te c tio n , by o th ers as an ab o rtio n . T h u s the life of n atio n s rolls o n unchecked, w ith o u t guidance, unconscious of w here it is going, lik e a rock crashing dow n th e side o f a h ill, u n til it is sto p p ed by a n obstacle stro n g er than itself. P o litical events m ove from o ne im passe to th e n ex t, like a to rre n t c au g h t in gullies, creeks, an d m arshes. A ll h u m a n control comes to a n en d w hen the in d iv id u a l is c au g h t in a mass m ovem ent. T h e n the archetypes b eg in to fu n c tio n , as h ap p en s also in the lives of in d iv id u a ls w h en they are c o n fro n te d w ith situ atio n s th a t c a n n o t be d e a lt w ith in any of th e fa m ilia r ways. 189

C IV IL IZ A T IO N IN T R A N S IT IO N

B ut w hat a so-called Fiihrer does w ith a mass m ovem en t can p lain ly be seen if w e turn our eyes to the north or sou th o f our country. 396 T h e ru lin g archetype does n o t rem ain the sam e for ever, as is evid en t from the tem poral lim itation s that have been set to the hoped-for reign o f peace, the “thousand-year R eich .” T h e M editerranean father-archetype o f the just, order-loving, b en ev ­ o le n t ruler has been shattered over the w h o le o f northern E urope, as the present fate of the C hristian C hurches bears w it­ ness. Fascism in Italy and the civ il war in Spain show that in the sou th as w ell the cataclysm has b een far greater than o n e e x ­ pected. E ven the C atholic C hurch can n o longer afford trials of strength. 397 T h e n ationalist G od has attacked C hristianity on a broad front. In R ussia he is called technology and science, in Italy, D uce, and in Germ any, “G erm an F aith,” “G erm an C hristian­ ity ,” or the State. T h e “G erm an C hristians” 16 are a contradic­ tion in terms and w ou ld do better to jo in H a u er’s “Germ an Faith M ovem en t.” 18 T h ese are d ecen t and w ell-m eanin g p eop le 15 A N a tio n a l S ocialist m o v e m en t in sid e th e P ro te s ta n t C h u rc h , w h ich trie d to e lim in a te a ll vestiges o f th e O ld T e s ta m e n t from C h ristia n ity . 16 W ilh e lm H a u e r (b. 1881), first a m issio n ary a n d la te r p ro fe sso r o f S a n sk rit a t th e U n iv ersity of T iib in g e n , w as th e fo u n d e r a n d le a d e r o f th e “ G e rm a n F a ith M ove­ m e n t.” I t tr ie d to e sta b lish a " G e rm a n F a ith ” fo u n d e d o n G e rm a n a n d N o rd ic w rit­ ings a n d tra d itio n s, e.g., tho se o f E c k h a rt a n d G o eth e . T h is m o v e m en t s o u g h t to co m b in e a n u m b e r of d iffe ren t a n d o ften in c o m p a tib le tren d s: som e o f its m e m ­ b e rs ac ce p te d a n e x p u rg a te d fo rm of C h ristia n ity , o th e rs w ere o p p o se d n o t o n ly to C h ris tia n ity in any fo rm b u t to every k in d o f re lig io n o r g od. O n e o f th e co m ­ m o n article s o f fa ith , w h ich th e m o v e m en t a d o p te d in 1934, was: “ T h e G e rm a n F a ith M o v em en t aim s a t th e relig io u s ren a issa n ce of th e n a tio n o u t o f th e h e r e d ­ ita ry fo u n d a tio n s of th e G e rm a n rac e.” T h e s p ir it of th is m o v e m e n t m ay b e c o n tra ste d w ith a se rm o n p re a c h e d by D r. L a n g m a n n , a n evangelical clergym an a n d h ig h d ig n ita ry o f th e C h u rc h , a t th e fu n e ra l o f th e la te G ustloff. D r. L a n g m a n n gave th e ad d ress " in S.A. u n ifo rm a n d ja c k b o o ts.” H e sp e d th e deceased o n h is jo u rn e y to H ad es, a n d d ire c te d h im to V alh a lla , to th e h o m e o f S iegfried a n d B a ld u r, th e h ero es w h o " n o u ris h th e life of th e G e rm a n p eo p le by th e sacrifice o f th e ir b lo o d ”—lik e C h rist am o n g o th e rs. "M ay th is god send th e n a tio n s o f th e e a r th c la n k in g on th e ir w ay th r o u g h h is­ to ry .” " L o rd bless o u r stru g g le . A m en .” T h u s th e re v e re n d g e n tle m a n e n d e d his ad d ress, ac co rd in g to th e N e u e Z iirc h er Z e itu n g (1936, n o . S4g). As a service h e ld to W o ta n it is n o d o u b t very ed ify in g —a n d re m a rk a b ly to le ra n t to w ard s believers in C h ristt A re o u r C h u rc h e s in c lin e d to be e q u a lly to le r a n t a n d to p re a c h th a t C h rist sh ed h is b lo o d fo r th e sa lv atio n o f m a n k in d , lik e S iegfried, B a ld u r, a n d O d in a m o n g others?! O n e ca n ask u n e x p e c te d ly g ro tesq u e q u e stio n s th ese days.

598

who honestly ad m it th e ir E rgriffenheit and try to com e to terms w ith this new an d u n d en iab le fact. T h e y go to an enorm ous am o u n t of tro u b le to m ake it look less alarm ing by dressing it up in a conciliatory historical garb and giving us consoling glimpses of g reat figures such as M eister E ckhartj who was also a G erm an an d also ergriffen. In this way the awkward question of who the Ergreifer is is circum vented. H e was always “G od.” B u t the m ore H a u e r restricts the world-wide sphere of IndoE uropean cu ltu re to the “ N ordic” in general and to the Edda in particular, an d the m ore “G erm an” this faith becomes as a m ani­ festation of E rgriffenheitj the m ore painfully evident it is that the “G erm an ” god is the god of the G erm ans. O ne can n o t read H a u e r’s book 17 w ith o u t em otion, if one regards it as the tragic an d really heroic effort of a conscientious scholar who, w ith o u t know ing how it h appened to him , was vio­ lently sum m oned by the in au d ib le voice of the Ergreifer and is now trying w ith all his m ight, and w ith all his knowledge and ability, to b u ild a b rid g e betw een the d ark forces of life and the shin in g w orld of historical ideas. B u t w hat do all the beauties of the past from totally different levels of c u ltu re m ean to the m an of today, w hen confronted w ith a living an d unfathom able trib al god such as he has never experienced before? T h ey are sucked like dry leaves in to the ro arin g w hirlw ind, and the rhythm ic alliterations of the Edda becom e inextricably m ixed u p w ith C hristian mystical texts, G erm an poetry, an d the wisdom of the Upanishads. H a u e r him self is ergriffen by the depths of m ean­ ing in the p rim al words lying at the ro o t of the G erm anic lan ­ guages, to an e x ten t th a t he certainly never knew before. H au er the Indologist is n o t to blam e for this, n o r yet the Edda; it is rath er the fau lt of kairos—the present m om ent in tim e—whose nam e on closer investigation tu rn s o u t to be W otan. I w ould therefore advise th e G erm an F aith M ovem ent to throw aside their scruples. In te llig e n t people w ill n o t confuse them w ith the crude W otan-w orshippers whose faith is a m ere pretence. T h e re are people in the G erm an F aith M ovem ent who are in tellig en t enough n o t only to believe b u t to know th at the god of the Germans is W otan a n d n o t th e C hristian G od. T h is is a tragic experience and no disgrace. I t has always been terrib le to fall 1T D eu tsch e G ottschau: G rundxiige eines d eu tsch en G laubens [G erm an V ision of G od: Basic E lem en ts of a G e rm a n E aith].

899

in to th e h a n d s of a liv in g god. Y ahw eh was n o e x c e p tio n to th is ru le , a n d th e P h ilistin e s, E d o m ites, A m o rites, a n d th e rest, w h o w ere o u ts id e th e Y ahw eh e x p e rie n c e , m u s t c e rta in ly hav e fo u n d i t ex ceed in g ly d isag reeab le. T h e S e m itic 18 e x p e rie n c e o f A lla h was fo r a lo n g tim e a n e x tre m e ly p a in fu l affair fo r th e w h o le of C h riste n d o m . W e w ho s ta n d o u ts id e ju d g e th e G e rm a n s fa r too m u c h as if they w ere re sp o n sib le ag en ts, b u t p e rh a p s it w o u ld be n e a r e r th e tr u th to re g a rd th e m also as victim s. If w e a p p ly o u r a d m itte d ly p e c u lia r p o in t o f v iew co n sist­ en tly , w e a re d riv e n to c o n c lu d e th a t W o ta n m u st, in tim e, re v e a l n o t o n ly th e restless, v io le n t, sto rm y side o f his c h a ra c te r, b u t also his ecstatic a n d m a n tic q u a litie s —a v ery d iffe re n t asp ect o f h is n a tu re . If th is c o n c lu sio n is c o rre ct, N a tio n a l Socialism w o u ld n o t be th e last w o rd . T h in g s m u s t b e c o n ce a led in th e b a c k g ro u n d w h ich w e c a n n o t im a g in e a t p re se n t, b u t w e m ay e x p e c t th e m to a p p e a r in th e course of th e n e x t few y ears o r decades. W o ta n ’s re a w a k e n in g is a s te p p in g b ack in to th e past; th e stre am was d a m m e d u p a n d has b ro k e n in to its o ld c h a n n e l. B u t th e o b s tru c tio n w ill n o t la st fo r ever; it is r a th e r a reculer p o u r m ie u x sauter, a n d th e w a te r w ill o v e rle ap th e o b stacle. T h e n a t last w e shall k n o w w h a t W o ta n is say in g w h e n h e " m u r ­ m u rs w ith M im ir’s h e a d ." Fast move the sons of M im , and fate Is heard in the note of the G jallarh o rn ; L oud blows H eim dall, the horn is aloft, In fear quake all w ho on H el-roads are. Yggdrasil shakes and shivers on high T h e ancient limbs, and the gian t is loose; W otan m urm urs w ith M im ir’s head B ut the kinsm an of Surt shall slay h im soon. H ow fare the gods? how fare the elves? AU Jo tu n h eim groans, the gods are at council; L oud roar the dwarfs by the doors of stone, T h e masters of the rocks: w ould you know yet more? 18 [U sing th e w o rd to co n n o te th o se p eo p les w ith in th e S em itic la n g u a g e -g ro u p . — T r a n s .]

N o w G a rm how ls lo u d b efo re G n ip a h e llir; T h e fetters w ill b u rst, a n d th e w o lf r u n free; M u ch d o I know , a n d m o re can see O f th e fate of th e gods, th e m ig h ty in fight. F ro m th e east com es H ry m w ith sh ield h eld h ig h ; I n g ia n t-w ra th does th e se rp e n t w rith e; O 'e r th e w aves h e tw ists, a n d th e taw n y eagle G naw s corpses scream ing; N a g lfa r is loose. O 'e r th e sea fro m th e n o r th W ith th e p eo p le of H el, at A fte r th e w olf d o w ild m en A n d w ith th e m th e b ro th e r 18

th e re sails a sh ip th e h elm stan d s L oki; follow , o f B yleist goes.19

V oluspo (T h e P o e tic E d d a , trans. by Bellow s, pp. 2of.; lin e 7 m od.).

AFTER T H E CA TA STR O PH E1 T h is is the first tim e since 1936 th a t the fate of G erm any again drives m e to take u p m y pen. T h e q u o ta tio n from the Voluspo w ith w hich I en d ed the article 2 I w rote a t th a t tim e, a b o u t W o tan “m u rm u rin g w ith M im ir’s h ead ,” p o in ted p ro ­ phetically to the n a tu re of the com ing apocalyptic events. T h e m yth has been fulfilled, a n d the g reater p a rt of E u ro p e lies in ruins. Before th e w ork of reco n stru ctio n can begin, th ere is a good deal of clearing u p to be done, an d this calls above all for reflec­ tion. Q uestions are b ein g asked on all sides a b o u t the m ean in g of the w hole tragedy. People have even tu rn e d to m e for an exp lan atio n , an d I have had to answ er them there a n d th e n to th e best of m y ability. B u t as th e spoken w ord very quickly gives rise to legends, I have decided—n o t w ith o u t considerable hesi­ tations an d m isgivings—to set dow n my views once again in the form of an article. I am only too w ell aw are th a t “G erm an y ” presents an im m ense problem , a n d th at the subjective views of a m edical psychologist can touch on only a few aspects of this gigantic tangle of questions. I m u st be c o n ten t w ith a m odest c o n trib u tio n to th e w ork of clearing up, w ith o u t even a tte m p t­ in g to look as far ahead as reco n stru ction. W h ile I was w o rking on this article I noticed how c h u rn e d u p one still is in o n e’s ow n psyche, a n d how difficult it is to reach an y th in g ap p ro ach in g a m o d erate a n d relatively calm p o in t of view in th e m idst of o n e’s em otions. N o d o u b t we sho u ld b e cold-blooded a n d su p erio r; b u t we are, on the whole, 1 [First p ublished as "N ach d er K atastrophe,” N eu e Schweizer R u n dschau (Zurich), n j „ X III (1945). 67—88; re p rin te d in A ufsatze zu r Zeitgeschichte (Zurich, 1946), p p . 73-116. Previously trans. by Elizabeth W elsh in Essays on Contem porary Events (London, 1947), p p . 45-72.—E d i t o r s .) 2 [See previous paper.]

m uch m ore deeply involved in th e recen t events in G erm any th a n we like to ad m it. N o r can we feel com passion, fo r the h e a rt h arb o u rs feelings of a very d ifferen t n atu re, an d these w ould like to have th e first say. N e ith e r th e d o ctor n o r th e psychologist can afford to b e only cold-blooded—q u ite a p a rt from the fact th at they w o u ld find it im possible. T h e ir relatio n sh ip to the w orld involves th em a n d all th e ir affects, otherw ise th e ir relatio n sh ip w ould be incom plete. T h a t b ein g so, I fo u n d m yself faced w ith the task of steerin g m y ship betw een Scylla a n d C harybdis, an d —as is usual o n such a voyage—sto p p in g my ears to one side of my b e in g a n d lashing th e o th er to th e m ast. I m u st confess th at no article has ever given m e so m u ch tro u b le, from a m oral as well as a h u m a n p o in t o f view. I h ad n o t realized how m uch I myself was affected. T h e re are others, I am sure, w ho will share this feeling w ith m e. T h is in n e r id e n tity or participation mys­ tiq u e w ith events in G erm any has caused m e to experience afresh how p a in fu lly w ide is the scope of the psychological con­ cept of collective gu ilt. So w hen I approach this p ro b le m it is certain ly n o t w ith any feelings of cold-blooded su p erio rity , b u t ra th e r w ith a n avow ed sense of inferiority. 4«>3 T h e psychological use of the w ord “g u ilt” sh o u ld n o t be con­ fused w ith g u ilt in th e legal o r m o ral sense. Psychologically, it connotes th e irra tio n a l presence of a subjective feeling (or con­ viction) o f g u ilt, o r a n objective im p u ta tio n of, o r im p u te d share in, g u ilt. As an exam ple o f th e latter, suppose a m an belongs to a fam ily w hich has th e m isfo rtu n e to be disgraced because one of its m em bers has co m m itted a crim e. I t is clear th a t he can n o t be h e ld responsible, e ith e r legally o r m orally. Yet the atm os­ phere of g u ilt m akes itself felt in m any ways. H is fam ily nam e appears to have b een sullied, a n d it gives h im a p ain fu l shock to h ear it b a n d ie d a b o u t in th e m o u ths of strangers. G u ilt can be restricted to th e law b reak er only from the legal, m oral, an d in tellectu al p o in t o f view, b u t as a psychic p h en o m en o n it spreads itself over th e w hole n eig h b o u rh o o d . A house, a family, even a village w h ere a m u rd e r has been co m m itted feels the psychological g u ilt a n d is m ade to feel it by the outside w orld. W o u ld o n e take a room w here one knows a m an was m u rd e re d a few days before? Is it p artic u la rly p leasant to m arry the sister or d a u g h te r of a crim inal? W h a t fa th er is n o t deeply w ounded if his son is sen t to prison, a n d does he n o t feel in ju re d in his

404

fam ily p rid e if a c o u sin of th e sam e n a m e b rin g s d is h o n o u r on his house? W o u ld n o t every d e c e n t Swiss feel a sh a m e d —to p u t it m ild ly —if o u r G o v e rn m e n t h a d e re c te d a h u m a n s la u g h te r­ h o u se lik e M a id e n e k in o u r c o u n try ? W o u ld we th e n b e s u r­ p rise d if, tra v e llin g a b ro a d w ith o u r Swiss passports, w e h e a rd su ch re m a rk s a t th e fro n tie r as “ Ces cochons d e Suisses!” ? I n ­ d eed , a re w e n o t a ll a little a sh a m e d —p recisely b ecau se w e are p a trio ts —th a t S w itz e rla n d sh o u ld have b re d so m a n y traito rs? L iv in g as w e d o in th e m id d le of E u ro p e , w e Swiss feel co m ­ fo rta b ly far re m o v e d fro m th e fo u l v a p o u rs th a t arise fro m th e m orass of G e rm a n g u ilt. B u t all th is changes th e m o m e n t we set foot, as E u ro p ea n s, o n a n o th e r c o n tin e n t o r co m e in to c o n ta c t w ith a n O rie n ta l p eople. W h a t a re we to say to a n In d ia n w h o asks us: “ Y ou a re a n x io u s to b r in g us y o u r C h ris tia n c u ltu re , a re you not? M ay I ask if A uschw itz a n d B u ch e n w a ld a re e x am p les o f E u ro p e a n civ iliz atio n ? ” W o u ld it h e lp m a tte rs if w e h a ste n e d to assure h im th a t these th in g s d id n o t take place w h e re w e live, b u t several h u n d r e d m iles f u r th e r east—n o t in o u r c o u n try a t all b u t in a n e ig h b o u rin g one? H o w w o u ld we re a c t if a n In d ia n p o in te d o u t in d ig n a n tly th a t I n d ia ’s b lack sp o t lay n o t in T ra v a n c o re b u t in H y d e rab a d ? U n d o u b te d ly w e’d say, “ O h w ell, In d ia is In d ia ! ” S im ilarly, th e view a ll o v er th e E ast is, “ O h w ell, E u ro p e is E u ro p e !” T h e m o m e n t we so-called in n o ­ c e n t E u ro p e a n s cross th e fro n tie rs o f o u r ow n c o n tin e n t w e are m ad e to feel so m e th in g o f th e collectiv e g u ilt th a t w eighs u p o n it, d e sp ite o u r good conscience. (O n e m ig h t also ask: Is R u ssia so p rim itiv e th a t she can still feel o u r “g u ilt-b y -c o n ta g io n ”— as co llectiv e g u ilt m ig h t also b e called —a n d fo r th a t re a so n accuses us o f Fascism?) T h e w o rld sees E u ro p e as th e c o n tin e n t o n w hose soil th e sh a m e fu l c o n c e n tra tio n cam ps grew , ju s t as E u ro p e singles o u t G e rm a n y as th e la n d a n d th e p e o p le th a t a re en v elo p e d in a c lo u d of g u ilt; fo r th e h o rr o r h a p p e n e d in G e r­ m an y a n d its p e rp e tra to rs w ere G e rm a n s. N o G e rm a n c an d en y this, a n y m o re th a n a E u ro p e a n o r a C h ris tia n c an d e n y th a t th e m o st m o n stro u s c rim e of a ll ages was c o m m itte d in his house. T h e C h ris tia n C h u rc h sh o u ld p u t ashes o n h e r h e ad a n d re n d h e r g a rm e n ts o n a c c o u n t o f th e g u ilt o f h e r c h ild re n . T h e sh adow o f th e ir g u ilt has fa lle n o n h e r as m u c h as u p o n E u ro p e , th e m o th e r o f m o n sters. E u ro p e m u st a c c o u n t fo r h e rself b e fo re th e w o rld , ju s t as G e rm a n y m u s t b e fo re E u ro p e . T h e E u ro p e a n 196

can n o m o re convince th e In d ia n th a t G erm an y is n o co n cern of his, o r th a t he know s n o th in g a t all a b o u t th a t country, th an the G erm an can rid h im self of his collective g u ilt by p ro te stin g th at he d id n o t know . I n th a t way he m erely co m pounds his collective g u ilt by th e sin of unconsciousness. 405 Psychological collective g u ilt is a tragic fate. I t h its every­ body, ju s t a n d u n ju st alike, everybody w ho was anyw here n ear the place w here th e te rrib le th in g h ap p en ed . N a tu ra lly n o re a ­ sonable a n d conscientious person w ill lightly tu rn collective in to in d iv id u al g u ilt by h o ld in g th e in d iv id u al responsible w ith o u t giving h im a h earin g . H e w ill k now enough to d istin g u ish be­ tw een th e in d iv id u ally g u ilty a n d th e m erely collectively guilty. B ut how m any people are e ith e r reasonable o r conscientious, an d how m any take th e tro u b le to becom e so? I am n o t very op tim istic in this respect. T h e re fo re , a lth o u g h collective g u ilt, viewed on th e arch aic a n d p rim itiv e level, is a state of magical uncleanness, yet precisely because of the gen eral u n reaso n ab le­ ness it is a very real fact, w hich n o E u ro p ean outside E u ro p e a n d no G erm an o u tsid e G erm an y can leave o u t of account. If the G erm an in ten d s to live on good term s w ith E urope, he m u st be conscious th a t in th e eyes of E u ro p ean s he is a g u ilty m an. As a G erm an, he has b etray ed E u ro p e an civilization a n d all its values; he has b ro u g h t sham e a n d disgrace o n his E u ro p ean fam ily, so th a t one m u st b lu sh to h e ar oneself called a E u ro p e a n ; he has fallen on his E u ro p e a n b re th re n like a beast of prey, a n d to r­ tu red a n d m u rd e re d them . T h e G erm an can hardly expect o th e r E uropeans to reso rt to such niceties as to in q u ire a t every step w h eth er th e c rim in a l’s nam e was M iiller o r M eier. N e ith e r w ill he b e deem ed w orthy of b ein g tre ated as a g en tlem an u n til the con trary has b een proved. U n fo rtu n ately , for tw elve long years it has b een d em o n strated w ith th e u tm o st clarity th a t the official G erm an was n o gen tlem an . 4°6 If a G erm an is p re p a re d to acknow ledge his m o ral in fe rio rity as collective g u ilt before the w hole w orld, w ith o u t a tte m p tin g to m inim ize it o r e x p lain it away w ith flimsy argum ents, th en he will stan d a reaso n ab le chance, after a tim e, of b e in g taken for a m o re o r less d ecen t m an, an d will thus be absolved of his col­ lective g u ilt a t an y rate in th e eyes of individuals. 4°7 I t m ay be o b jected th a t th e w hole concept of psychological collective g u ilt is a p re ju d ic e a n d a sw eepingly u n fa ir condem na-

tion. O f course it is, b u t th a t is precisely w hat constitutes the irra tio n a l n a tu re of collective g u ilt: it cares n o th in g for th e just a n d the u n ju st, it is th e d a rk c lo u d th a t rises u p fro m the scene of an u n ex p iated crim e. I t is a psychic p h en o m en o n , a n d it is therefore no co n d em n atio n of th e G erm an people to say that they are collectively guilty, b u t sim ply a sta te m e n t of fact. Yet if we p en etrate m ore deeply in to th e psychology of this phe­ nom enon, we shall soon discover th a t th e p ro b le m of collective g u ilt has an o th e r an d m ore q u estio n ab le aspect th a n th a t m erely of a collective ju d g m en t. 4°8 Since n o m an lives w ith in his o w n psychic sp h ere like a snail in its shell, separated from everybody else, b u t is con n ected w ith his fellow -m en by his unconscious h u m an ity , n o crim e can ever b e w hat it appears to o u r consciousness to be: an isolated psychic h ap p en in g . In reality, it always hap p ens over a w ide rad iu s. T h e sensation aroused by a crim e, th e passionate in te re st in tracking dow n th e crim in al, the eagerness w ith w hich th e c o u rt proceed­ ings are follow ed, a n d so on, all go to prove th e e x citin g effect w hich the crim e has on everybody w ho is n o t a b n o rm ally d u ll o r apathetic. Everybody joins in, feels the crim e in his own being, tries to u n d e rsta n d an d ex p lain it. S o m ething is set aflame by th a t great fire of evil th a t flared u p in th e crim e. W as n o t P lato aw are th at th e sight of ugliness produces so m eth in g ugly in th e soul? In d ig n a tio n leaps up, an gry cries of “Ju stic e !” p u r­ sue th e m u rd e rer, an d they are lo u d er, m ore im passioned, and m ore charged w ith h ate the m o re fiercely b u rn s the fire of evil th a t has been lit in o u r souls. I t is a fact th a t can n o t be d enied: th e w ickedness of o thers becom es o u r own w ickedness because it k indles so m eth ing evil in o u r ow n hearts. T h e m u rd e r has been suffered by everyone, a n d everyone has co m m itted it; lu re d by th e irresistib le fascination of evil, we have all m ade this collective psychic m u rd e r possible; a n d th e closer we w ere to it a n d th e b e tte r w e co u ld see, the g reater o u r guilt. In this way we are u n avoidably d raw n in to the uncleanness of evil, n o m a tte r w h at o u r conscious a ttitu d e may be. N o one can escape this, for we are all so m u ch a p a rt of the h u m a n co m m u n ity th a t every crim e calls fo rth a secret satisfac­ tio n in some co rn er of the fickle h u m a n heart. I t is tru e that, in persons w ith a stro n g m oral disposition, this reactio n may arouse co n trary feelings in a n e ig h b o u rin g c o m p artm e n t of the 198

m ind. B u t a stro n g m o ral d isp o sition is a com parative rarity, so th at w hen th e crim es m o u n t u p , in d ig n a tio n m ay easily get pitched too h ig h , a n d evil th e n becom es the o rd er of the day. Everyone h a rb o u rs his “statistical c rim in a l’’ in him self, ju st as he has his ow n p riv a te m a d m a n o r saint. O w ing to this basic pecu liarity in o u r h u m a n m ake-up, a co rresp o n d in g suggesti­ bility, o r su sce p tib ility to in fectio n , exists everyw here. I t is o u r age in p a rtic u la r—th e last h alf c e n tu ry —th a t has p rep ared the way for crim e. H as it n e v er o ccu rred to anybody, for instance, that the vogue fo r th e th rille r has a ra th e r q u estio n ab le side? 4°9 L ong b efo re 1933 th e re was a sm ell of b u rn in g in the air, and p eople w ere passionately in te re sted in discovering th e locus of the fire a n d in tra ck in g d ow n the incendiary. A n d w hen denser clouds o f sm oke w ere seen to g ath er over G erm any, a n d the b u rn in g of th e R eich stag gave th e signal, th e n a t last there was n o m istak e w h ere th e in cen d iary, evil in person, dw elt. T e rrify in g as this discovery was, in tim e it b ro u g h t a sense of relief: n o w we k new fo r c e rta in w h ere all unrighteousness was to be fo u n d , w hereas we ourselves w ere securely en tren ch ed in the opp o site cam p, am o n g resp ectab le people whose m oral in d ig ­ n atio n co u ld b e tru s te d to rise h ig h e r a n d h ig h er w ith every fresh sign o f g u ilt o n th e o th e r side. E ven the call for mass execu­ tions n o lo n g e r offended th e ears of th e righteous, a n d the satu ­ ratio n b o m b in g o f G e rm a n cities was looked u p o n as the ju d g ­ m en t of G od. H a te h a d fo u n d respectable m otives a n d had ceased to b e a p erso n al idiosyncrasy, in d u lg ed in secret. A n d all the tim e th e esteem ed p u b lic h ad n o t th e fain test idea how closely they them selves w ere liv in g to evil. 4 1° O n e sh o u ld n o t im ag in e for a m o m en t th a t anybody could escape this p lay of opposites. E ven a sain t w ould have to pray unceasingly for th e souls of H itle r a n d H im m ler, th e G estapo and th e S.S., in o rd e r to re p a ir w ith o u t delay the dam age done to his ow n soul. T h e sig h t o f evil kindles evil in the soul—there is n o g e ttin g aw ay fro m this fact. T h e victim is n o t th e only suf­ ferer; everybody in th e v icin ity o f the crim e, in c lu d in g the m u rd erer, suffers w ith him . S o m eth in g of the abysm al darkness of the w o rld has b ro k e n in o n us, p oisoning the very a ir we breath e a n d b e fo u lin g th e p u re w ater w ith the stale, n au seatin g taste of blood. T r u e , we a re in n o cen t, we are the victim s, rob b ed , betrayed, o u tra g ed ; a n d yet fo r all th at, o r precisely because of

it, th e flame of evil glowers in o u r m oral in d ig n atio n . I t m ust be so, for it is necessary th a t som eone sh o u ld feel in d ig n an t, th a t som eone sh o u ld let him self be the sw ord of ju d g m e n t w ielded by fate. Evil calls for ex p iatio n , otherw ise the w icked w ill destroy th e w orld u tterly , o r the good suffocate in th e ir rage w hich they c a n n o t vent, an d in e ith e r case n o good w ill come of it. 4n W h en evil breaks a t any p o in t in to the o rd e r of things, o u r w hole circle of psychic p ro te ctio n is d isru p ted . A ction inevitably calls u p reaction, and, in the m a tte r of destructiveness, this tu rn s o u t to be ju st as b ad as th e crim e, a n d possibly even worse, because the evil m u st be e x te rm in a te d ro o t a n d b ran ch . In ord er to escape th e co n tam in atin g to u ch of evil we n eed a p ro p e r rite de sortie, a solem n adm ission of g u ilt by judge, h angm an, and pu b lic, follow ed by an act of ex p iatio n. 4 »* T h e te rrib le things th a t have h ap p en ed in G erm any, a n d the m oral dow nfall of a "n a tio n of eighty m illio n s,” are a blow aim ed a t all E uropeans. (W e used to be able to relegate such things to "A sia!”) T h e fact th a t one m em b er of th e E u ro p ean fam ily co u ld sink to the level of th e co n cen tratio n cam p throw s a d u b io u s lig h t on all th e others. W h o are we to im agine th at “it c o u ld n ’t h ap p en h e re ” ? W e have only to m u ltip ly the p o p u ­ latio n of Sw itzerland by tw enty to becom e a n a tio n of eighty m illions, a n d o u r p u b lic in tellig en ce a n d m o rality w ould then auto m atically be d iv id ed by tw enty in consequence of the dev astatin g m oral an d psychic effects of liv in g to g eth er in huge masses. Such a state of things provides the basis for collective crim e, a n d it is th e n really a m iracle if the crim e is n o t com ­ m itted . D o we seriously believe th a t w e w ould have b een im ­ m u n e? W e, w ho have so m any tra ito rs a n d p o litical psychopaths in o u r m idst? I t has filled us w ith h o rro r to realize all th a t m an is capable of, an d of w hich, therefore, w e too are capable. Since th e n a te rrib le d o u b t a b o u t h u m an ity , a n d a b o u t ourselves, gnaws a t o u r hearts. 4*3 N evertheless, it sh o u ld b e clear to everyone th a t such a state of d eg rad atio n can com e a b o u t only u n d e r certain conditions. T h e m ost im p o rta n t of these is th e accu m u latio n of u rb a n , in ­ d ustrialized masses—of people to rn from th e soil, engaged in one­ sided em ploym ent, a n d lacking every health y in stin ct, even th a t of self-preservation. Loss of th e in stin c t of self-preservation can 200

be m easured in term s of d ep en d en ce on th e State, w hich is a b ad symptom . D ep en d en ce on th e S tate m eans th a t everybody relies on everybody else ( = State) in stead of on him self. Every m an hangs on to th e n e x t a n d enjoys a false feeling of security, for one is still h an g in g in th e a ir even w hen han g in g in the com ­ pany of ten th o u san d o th e r people. T h e only difference is th at one is n o lo n g er aw are of o n e ’s ow n insecurity. T h e increasing dependence o n th e State is a n y th in g b u t a healthy sym ptom ; it m eans th a t th e w hole n a tio n is in a fair way to becom ing a h erd of sheep, co n stan tly rely in g on a sh ep h erd to d riv e them in to good pastures. T h e sh e p h e rd ’s staff soon becom es a rod of iron, and the shepherds tu rn in to wolves. W h a t a distressing sight it was to see th e w hole of G erm any heave a sigh of relief w hen a megalomaniac psychopath proclaim ed, “I take over the re­ sponsibility!” A ny m an w ho still possesses the in stin ct of selfpreservation know s perfectly w ell th a t only a sw indler w ould offer to relieve h im of resp o n sib ility , for surely n o one in his senses w o uld d rea m of tak in g resp o n sib ility for the existence of ano th er. T h e m a n w ho prom ises everything is sure to fulfil noth in g , a n d everyone w ho prom ises too m uch is in d an g er of using evil m eans in o rd e r to carry o u t his prom ises, a n d is al­ ready o n th e ro a d to p erd itio n . T h e steady grow th of the W el­ fare State is n o d o u b t a very fine th in g from one p o in t of view, b u t from a n o th e r it is a d o u b tfu l blessing, as it robs people of th eir in d iv id u al resp o n sib ility an d tu rn s th em in to in fan ts a n d sheep. Besides this, th ere is th e d an g er th a t th e capable w ill sim ply be ex p lo ited by the irresponsible, as h ap p en ed o n a huge scale in G erm an y . T h e citizen ’s in stin c t of self-preserva­ tion should b e safeguarded a t all costs, for, once a m an is cu t off from th e n o u rish in g roots of in stinct, he becom es the sh u ttle ­ cock of every w in d th a t blows. H e is th en no b e tte r th an a sick anim al, dem oralized a n d degenerate, a n d n o th in g short of a catastrophe can b rin g h im back to health. 4*4 I ow n th a t in saying all this I feel ra th e r like th e p ro p h e t who, according to Josephus, lifted u p his voice in lam en tatio n over the city as th e R om ans laid siege to Jerusalem . I t proved n o t th e slightest use to th e city, an d a stone m issile from a R om an b allista p u t an en d to th e p ro p h et. 4*5 W ith th e best w ill in th e w orld we can n o t b u ild a paradise on earth, a n d even if we could, in a very sh o rt tim e we w ould 201

have d eg en erated in every way. W e w o u ld take d elig h t in destroying o u r paradise, a n d th en , ju st as foolishly, m arvel at w h at we h ad done. M oreover, if we h ap p en ed to be a “n a tio n of eighty m illio n s” we w ould b e convinced th a t th e “o th ers” were to blam e, an d o u r self-confidence w o u ld be a t such a low eb b that we w ould n o t even th in k of sh o u ld erin g th e resp o n sib ility or tak in g th e blam e for anything. 4,e T h is is a pathological, dem oralized, a n d m en tally ab n o rm al co n d itio n : one side of us does things w hich the o th e r (so-called decent) side prefers to ignore. T h is side is in a p e rp e tu a l state of defence against real a n d supposed accusations. I n reality the chief accuser is n o t outside, b u t th e ju d g e w ho dw ells in o u r ow n hearts. Since this is n a tu r e ’s a tte m p t to b rin g a b o u t a cure, it w o u ld be w iser n o t to persist too long in r u b b in g th e noses of th e G erm ans in th e ir ow n ab o m in atio n s, lest w e d ro w n th e voice of th e accuser in th e ir h earts—a n d also in o u r ow n hearts and those of o u r Allies. If only people co u ld realize w hat an en rich ­ m e n t it is to find o n e’s ow n g u ilt, w h at a sense of h o n o u r an d sp iritu a l dignity! B u t now here does there seem to be a glim m er­ in g of this insight. Instead, we h e a r only of a ttem p ts to sh ift the blam e on to others—“n o one w ill a d m it to h aving been a N azi.” T h e G erm ans were never w holly in d ifferen t to th e im pression they m ade on th e o utside w orld. T h e y resented disapproval and h ated even to be criticized. In fe rio rity feelings m ake people touchy a n d lead to com pensatory efforts to im press. As a result, the G erm an th ru sts him self forw ard a n d seeks to c u rry favour, o r “ G erm an efficiency” is d em o n strated w ith such ap lo m b th at it leads to a reig n of te rro r a n d th e shooting of hostages. T h e G erm an n o lo n g er thinks of these things as m u rd e r, for he is lost in considerations of his ow n prestige. In fe rio rity feelings are usually a sign of in fe rio r feeling—w hich is n o t ju s t a play on words. A ll th e in tellectu al a n d technological achievem ents in the w orld can n o t m ake u p fo r in fe rio rity in the m a tte r of feeling. T h e pseudo-scientific race-theories w ith w h ich it was d olled u p d id n o t m ake the ex te rm in a tio n of the Jew s any m ore accept­ able, an d n e ith e r do falsifications of history m ake a w rong policy ap p ear any m ore trustw orthy. 4»7 T h is spectacle recalls th e figure of w hat N ietzsche so aptly calls th e “ p ale crim in al,” w ho in reality shows all the signs of hysteria. H e sim ply w ill n o t a n d c a n n o t a d m it th a t h e is w hat

he is; he c a n n o t e n d u re his ow n g u ilt, ju st as he could n o t h e lp in cu rrin g it. H e w ill stoop to every k in d of self-deception if only he can escape th e sig h t of him self. I t is tru e th a t this happens everywhere, b u t n o w h ere does it a p p e a r to be such a n a tio n a l characteristic as in G erm any. I am by n o m eans thie first to have been stru ck by th e in fe rio rity feelings of the G erm ans. W h a t d id G oethe, H ein e, a n d N ietzsche have to say a b o u t th e ir co u n try ­ men? A feelin g o f in fe rio rity does n o t in the least m ean th a t it is unjustified. O n ly, th e in fe rio rity does n o t refer to th a t side of the personality, o r to th e fu n ctio n , in w hich it visibly appears, b u t to a n in fe rio rity w hich n o n e the less really exists even though only d im ly suspected. T h is co n d itio n can easily lead to an hysterical d issociation of th e personality, w hich consists essen­ tially in o n e h a n d n o t k n o w in g w h at the o th e r is doing, in w an t­ ing to ju m p o v er o n e ’s ow n shadow , a n d in looking for every­ th in g dark, in fe rio r, a n d c u lp a b le in others. H ence th e hysteric always com plains of b e in g s u rro u n d e d by people w ho are in ­ capable of a p p re c ia tin g h im a n d w ho are activated only by b ad m otives; by in fe rio r m ischief-m akers, a crow d of su b m en w ho should be e x te rm in a te d neck a n d cro p so th a t the S u p erm an can live on his h ig h level of perfectio n . T h e very fact th a t his th in k ­ ing a n d feelin g p ro ceed alo n g these lines is clear p ro o f of in ­ feriority in action. T h e re fo re all hysterical people are com pelled to to rm en t others, because they are u n w illin g to h u r t them selves by a d m ittin g th e ir ow n in ferio rity . B u t since nobody can ju m p o u t of his skin a n d be r id of him self, they stan d in th e ir ow n way everyw here as th e ir ow n evil sp irit—a n d th a t is w h at we call an hysterical neurosis. A ll these p ath o lo g ical features—com plete lack of in sig h t in to one’s ow n ch aracter, au to-erotic self-adm iration and self-extenu­ ation, d e n ig ra tio n a n d terro riz atio n of o n e ’s fellow m en (how co n tem p tu o u sly H itle r spoke of his ow n people!), p ro jectio n of the shadow , lying, falsification of reality, d e te rm in a tio n to im ­ press by fa ir m eans o r foul, bluffing an d double-crossing—all these w ere u n ite d in th e m an who was diagnosed clinically as an hysteric, a n d w hom a strange fate chose to be the political, m oral, a n d relig io u s spokesm an of G erm any for twelve years. Is this p u re chance? A m ore accu rate diagnosis of H itle r ’s co n d itio n w o u ld be pseudologia p h a n ta s tic a th a t form of hysteria w hich is character203

ized by a p e c u lia r ta le n t fo r b e lie v in g o n e ’s o w n lies. F o r a sh o rt spell, su ch p e o p le u su ally m e e t w ith a s to u n d in g success, a n d fo r th a t reaso n a re socially d a n g e ro u s. N o th in g has su ch a c o n v in c ­ in g effect as a lie o n e in v e n ts a n d b eliev es o n eself, o r a n evil d e e d o r in te n tio n w hose rig h te o u sn e ss o n e re g a rd s as self-evi­ d e n t. A t any ra te th e y carry fa r m o re c o n v ic tio n th a n th e good m a n a n d th e good d eed , o r ev en th a n th e w ick ed m a n a n d his p u re ly w icked deed. H itle r ’s th e a tric a l, o b v io u sly h y sterica l ges­ tu re s s tru c k all fo reig n e rs (w ith a few am az in g e x ce p tio n s) as p u re ly rid ic u lo u s. W h e n I saw h im w ith m y o w n eyes, h e sug­ g ested a psychic scarecrow (w ith a b ro o m stic k fo r a n o u ts tre tc h e d a rm ) r a th e r th a n a h u m a n b e in g . I t is also d ifficu lt to u n d e r ­ s ta n d h o w his r a n tin g speeches, d e liv e re d in s h rill, g ra tin g , w o m a n ish tones, c o u ld have m a d e su ch a n im p ressio n . B u t th e G e rm a n p e o p le w o u ld n e v e r h av e b e e n ta k e n in a n d c a rrie d aw ay so c o m p le tely if this figure h a d n o t b e e n a re fle c ted im age o f th e co llectiv e G e rm a n h y steria. I t is n o t w ith o u t serio u s m is­ g ivings th a t o n e v e n tu re s to p in th e la b e l of “ p sy c h o p a th ic in ­ fe rio rity ” o n to a w h o le n a tio n , a n d yet, h e av e n know s, it is th e o n ly e x p la n a tio n w h ich c o u ld in a n y w ay a c c o u n t fo r th e effect th is scarecrow h a d o n th e m asses. A so rry lack o f e d u c a tio n , c o n ­ c e it th a t b o rd e re d on m adness, a v ery m e d io c re in te llig e n c e c o m b in e d w ith th e h y ste ric ’s c u n n in g a n d th e p o w e r fan tasies o f a n ad o lescen t, w e re w ritte n all o v e r th is d e m a g o g u e ’s face. H is g e stic u la tio n s w e re all p u t o n , dev ised b y a n h y sterica l m in d in te n t o n ly on m a k in g a n im p ressio n . H e b e h a v e d in p u b lic lik e a m a n liv in g in his ow n b io g ra p h y , in th is case as th e so m b re, d a e m o n ic “ m a n of ir o n ” o f p o p u la r fiction, th e id e a l of a n in fa n tile p u b lic w hose k n o w le d g e o f th e w o rld is d e riv e d fro m th e deified h ero es o f trash y film s. T h e s e p e rso n a l o b serv a­ tio n s led m e to c o n c lu d e a t th e tim e (1937) th a t, w h e n th e final c a ta s tro p h e cam e, it w o u ld b e fa r g re a te r a n d b lo o d ie r th a n I h a d p re v io u sly su p p o sed . F o r th is th e a tric a l h y steric a n d tra n s ­ p a r e n t im p o sto r was n o t s tr u ttin g a b o u t o n a sm all stage, b u t w as r id in g th e a rm o u re d d iv isio n s o f th e W e h rm a c h t, w ith all th e w e ig h t o f G e rm a n heavy in d u s try b e h in d h im . E n c o u n te r­ in g o n ly slig h t a n d in an y case ineffective o p p o s itio n fro m w ith in , th e n a tio n o f e ig h ty m illio n s c ro w d ed in to th e c irc u s to w itness its o w n d e stru c tio n . 42° A m o n g H itle r ’s closest associates, G o e b b els a n d G o rin g s ta n d S04

o u t as e q u a lly s trik in g figures. G o rin g is th e good fello w a n d bon v tv a n t ty p e o f cheat, w h o takes in th e sim p le -m in d e d w ith his jo v ia l a ir o f re s p e c ta b ility ; G o e b b els, a no-less-sinister a n d d a n g ero u s c h a ra c te r, is th e ty p ic a l K a ffe eh a u slite ra t a n d cardsh arp er, h a n d ic a p p e d a n d a t th e sam e tim e b ra n d e d b y n a tu re . A ny o n e p a r tn e r in th is u n h o ly tr in ity s h o u ld have b e e n e n o u g h to m ak e an y m a n w hose in stin c ts w ere n o t w a rp e d cross h im ­ self th re e tim es. B u t w h a t in fact h a p p e n e d ? H itle r was e x a lte d to th e skies; th e re w ere ev en th e o lo g ia n s w h o lo o k ed u p o n h im as th e S a v io u r. G o rin g was p o p u la r o n a c c o u n t o f his w eak­ nesses; few p e o p le w o u ld b eliev e his crim es. G o e b b els was to le r­ a ted becau se m a n y p e o p le th in k th a t ly in g is in s e p a ra b le fro m success, a n d th a t success ju stifie s e v e ry th in g . T h r e e o f these types a t o n e tim e w ere re a lly th e lim it, a n d o n e is a t a loss to im ag in e h o w a n y th in g q u ite so m o n stro u s e v e r cam e to pow er. B u t w e m u s t n o t fo rg e t th a t we a re ju d g in g fro m to d ay , fro m a k n o w led g e o f th e e v en ts w h ic h le d to th e c a ta stro p h e . O u r ju d g ­ m e n t w o u ld c e rta in ly b e very d iffe re n t h a d o u r in fo rm a tio n sto p p ed s h o rt a t 1933 o r 1934. A t th a t tim e, in G e rm a n y as well as in Italy , th e re w e re n o t a few th in g s th a t a p p e a re d p la u sib le a n d seem ed to sp eak in fa v o u r o f th e re g im e . A n u n d e n ia b le piece of e v id en c e in th is re sp e c t was th e d isa p p e a ra n c e o f th e u n e m p lo y e d , w h o u se d to tra m p th e G e rm a n h ig h ro a d s in th e ir h u n d re d s o f th o u sa n d s. A n d a fte r th e s ta g n a tio n a n d d ecay o f th e post-w ar years, th e re fre s h in g w in d th a t b le w th ro u g h th e tw o c o u n trie s was a te m p tin g sign o f h o p e. M e a n w h ile , th e w hole o f E u r o p e lo o k e d o n a t this sp ectacle lik e M r. C h am b erlain, w h o w as p re p a re d a t m o st fo r a heavy show er. B u t it is ju s t this e x tre m e speciousness th a t is th e p e c u lia r g en iu s o f p seu d o logia p h a n ta stic a , a n d M u sso lin i also h a d a to u c h of it (k e p t w ith in b o u n d s , h o w ev er, w h ile h is b r o th e r A rn a ld o was alive). I t in tro d u c e s its p la n s in th e m o st in n o c e n t way in th e w o rld , fin d in g th e m o st a p p ro p ria te w ords a n d th e m o st p la u sib le a rg u ­ m ents, a n d th e re is n o th in g to show th a t its in te n tio n s a re b a d fro m th e s ta rt. T h e y m ay even b e good, g e n u in e ly good. In th e case o f M u sso lin i, fo r in sta n ce , it m ig h t b e difficult to d ra w a d e fin ite lin e b e tw e e n b la ck a n d w h ite . W h e re p seu d o lo g ia is a t w o rk o n e c a n n e v e r b e s u re th a t th e in te n tio n to deceiv e is th e p rin c ip a l m o tiv e . Q u ite o fte n th e " g re a t p la n ” plays th e le a d in g ro le, a n d i t is o n ly w h e n it com es to th e tic k lish q u e s tio n of 205

b rin g in g this p lan in to reality th a t every o p p o rtu n ity is ex­ p lo ite d an d any m eans is good eno u g h, on th e p rin c ip le th a t “ the e n d justifies th e m eans.” In o th e r w ords, things only becom e dangerous w hen th e pathological lia r is tak en seriously by a w id er public. L ike Faust, he is b o u n d to m ake a pact w ith the devil a n d thus slips off th e stra ig h t p ath. I t is even possible th at this is m ore o r less w h at h ap p e n ed to H itle r—le t us give h im the benefit of the d o u b t! B u t th e infam ies of his book, once it is sh o rn of its S c h w a b i n g e r z b ra n d of bom bast, m ake one suspi­ cious, a n d one can n o t h elp w o n d e rin g if th e evil sp irit h ad n o t alread y taken possession of this m a n lo n g before h e seized pow er. R o u n d a b o u t 1936, m any p eople in G erm an y w ere asking th em ­ selves th e same q u estio n ; they expressed fears th a t th e Fvihrer m ig h t fall a victim to “evil influences,” he d ab b led too m uch in "black m agic,” etc. C learly these m isgivings cam e m u ch too late; b u t even so, it is ju st conceivable th at H itle r him self m ay have h ad good in ten tio n s a t first, an d on ly succum bed to th e use of th e w ro n g m eans, o r th e m isuse of his m eans, in the course of his developm ent. 421 B u t I should like to em phasize above all th a t it is p a rt a n d parcel of the pathological lia r’s m ake-up to be plausible. T h e re ­ fore it is no easy m atter, even fo r exp erienced people, to form an o p in io n , p artic u la rly w hile th e p lan is still ap p are n tly in the idealistic stage. I t is th e n q u ite im possible to foresee how things are likely to develop, an d M r. C h a m b e rla in ’s “give-it-a-chance” a ttitu d e seems to b e the only policy. T h e overw helm ing m ajo rity of th e G erm ans w ere ju st as m u ch in the d a rk as people abroad, a n d q u ite n a tu ra lly fell an easy prey to H itle r’s speeches, so a rt­ fully a ttu n e d to G erm an (and n o t only G erm an) taste. 422 A lth o u g h we m ay be ab le to u n d e rsta n d w hy th e G erm ans w ere m isled in th e first place, th e alm ost to tal absence of any reactio n is q u ite in co m p reh en sib le. W ere th ere n o t arm y com ­ m anders w ho co u ld have o rd ered th e ir troops to do an y th in g they pleased? W hy th e n was th e reaction totally lacking? I can only ex p lain this as the o utcom e of a p ecu liar state of m in d , a passing o r ch ro n ic d isposition w hich, in an in d iv id u al, we call hysteria. 4*3 As I can n o t take it for g ra n ted th a t th e laym an know s exactly w h at is m ean t by "h y steria,” I h ad b e tte r ex p lain th a t th e “hys3

[Schwabing is th e bohem ian q u a rte r of M unich.—E d i t o r s . ]

206

te ric a l'' d isp o sitio n form s a su b d iv isio n o f w h a t a re k n o w n as "p sy c h o p a th ic in fe rio ritie s," T h is te rm by n o m ean s im p lies th a t th e in d iv id u a l o r th e n a tio n is " in fe rio r" in every resp ect, b u t o n ly th a t th e re is a place of least resistan ce, a p e c u lia r in sta b ility , w hich exists in d e p e n d e n tly of all th e o th e r q u a litie s. A n hys­ terical d isp o sitio n m ean s th a t th e o p p o sites in h e re n t in every psyche, a n d especially those affecting c h arac te r, a re f u r th e r a p a rt th a n in n o rm a l p eo p le. T h is g re a te r d istan ce p ro d u ces a h ig h e r en erg ic te n sio n , w h ic h acco u n ts for th e u n d e n ia b le e n erg y a n d d riv e of th e G e rm a n s. O n th e o th e r h a n d , th e g re a te r d ista n ce b etw een th e oppo sites p ro d u ces in n e r c o n tra d ic tio n s, conflicts of conscience, d ish arm o n ie s of c h a ra c te r—in sh o rt, e v e ry th in g we see in G o e th e ’s F aust. N o b o d y b u t a G e rm a n c o u ld ev er hav e d e ­ vised such a figure, it is so in trin sic a lly , so in fin itely G e rm a n . In F a u st we see th e sam e " h u n g e rin g fo r th e in fin ite " b o rn of in n e r c o n tra d ic tio n a n d d ich o to m y , th e sam e esch ato lo g ical e x ­ p e c ta tio n o f th e G re a t F u lfilm e n t. I n h im w e e x p e rie n c e th e lo ftiest flig h t o f th e m in d a n d th e d escen t in to th e d e p th s of g u ilt a n d darkness, a n d still w orse, a fall so low th a t F a u st sinks to th e level o f a m o u n te b a n k a n d w holesale m u rd e re r as th e o u tco m e of his p a c t w ith th e devil. F au st, too, is s p lit a n d sets u p “ e v il” o u tsid e h im se lf in th e sh ap e o f M ep h isto p h e le s, to serve as a n a lib i in case o f n eed. H e likew ise "k n o w s n o th in g of w h at has h a p p e n e d ,” i.e., w h a t th e d ev il d id to P h ile m o n a n d Baucis. W e n e v e r g e t th e im p ressio n th a t h e has re a l in sig h t o r suffers g e n u in e rem o rse. H is avow ed a n d u n av o w ed w o rsh ip of success stan d s in th e w ay of any m o ra l reflectio n th ro u g h o u t, o b ­ scu rin g th e e th ic a l conflict, so th a t F a u st’s m o ra l p e rso n ality rem ain s m isty. H e n e v er a tta in s th e c h a ra c te r o f re a lity : he is n o t a re a l h u m a n b e in g a n d c a n n o t b eco m e o n e (at least n o t in this w o rld). H e re m a in s th e G e rm a n id ea o f a h u m a n being, a n d th e re fo re a n im ag e—som ew h at o v e rd o n e a n d d is to rte d —of the average G e rm a n . 025

As to th e difference betw een Jew ish a n d “ A ryan-G erm anicC h ristia n -E u ro p ea n ” psychology, it can of course hardly be seen in the in d iv id u al products of science as a whole. B u t we are n o t so m uch concerned w ith these as w ith the fu n d am en tal fact th a t in psychology th e object of know ledge is a t the sam e tim e the organ of know ledge, w hich is tru e of n o o th e r science. I t has th erefo re b een d o u b te d in all sincerity w h eth er psychology is possible as a science a t all. In k eep in g w ith this d o u b t I sug­ gested years ago th a t every psychological theory sh o u ld be c riti­ cized in the first instance as a subjective confession. For, if the organ of know ledge is its ow n object, we have every reason to exam in e th e n a tu re of th a t o rg an very closely indeed, since the subjective prem ise is a t once th e o b ject of know ledge w hich is therefo re lim ite d from th e start. T h is subjective prem ise is id en ­ tical w ith o u r psychic idiosyncrasy. T h e idiosyncrasy is co n d i­ tio n ed (i) by th e in d iv id u al, (2) by th e fam ily, (3) by the n atio n , race, clim ate, locality, a n d history. 1026 1 have in m y tim e been accused of “Swiss w ooden-headedness.” N o t th a t I have an y th in g against possessing the n atio n al vices of the Swiss; I am also q u ite ready to suppose th a t I am a big o ted Swiss in every respect. I am perfectly co n te n t to le t my psychological confession, m y so-called “ theories,” be criticized as a p ro d u c t of Swiss w ooden-headedness o r queer-headedness, as b etray in g th e sin ister influence of m y theological a n d m edical forbears, and, in general, of o u r C h ristian an d G erm an heritage, as exem plified fo r instance by Schiller a n d M eister E ckhart. I am n o t affronted w hen p eople call m e “T e u to n ica lly confused,” "m ystical,” “m oralistic,” etc. I am p ro u d of my subjective p rem ­ ises, I love the Swiss ea rth in them , I am g ratefu l to m y theo­ logical forbears fo r hav in g passed on to m e the C h ristian p rem ­ ise, an d I also a d m it m y so-called “fath er com plex” : I do n o t w an t to k n u ck le u n d e r to an y “fathers” a n d never shall (see “queer-headedness” ). 1027 M ay it n o t th erefo re be said th a t th e re is a Jew ish psychology too, w hich adm its the p reju d ic e of its blood a n d its history? A n d m ay it n o t be asked w herein lie the p ecu liar differences betw een an essentially Jew ish a n d an essentially C h ristian outlook? Can it really be m a in ta in e d th a t I alone am ong psychologists have a special organ of know ledge w ith a subjective bias, w hereas the Jew is a p p a ren tly in su lted to the core if one assumes h im to be

a J e w ? P r e s u m a b ly h e w o u ld n o t h a v e o n e a s s u m e t h a t h is i n ­ s ig h ts a r e th e p r o d u c ts o f a m e r e c ip h e r , o r t h a t h is b r a i n e m e rg e d o n ly to d a y fro m th e fe a tu re le s s o c e a n o f n o n -h is to ry . I m u s t c o n fe s s m y to ta l in a b ilit y to u n d e r s t a n d w h y i t s h o u ld b e a c r im e to s p e a k o f “ J e w is h ” p s y c h o lo g y . i°a8 I f I w e r e i n t h e p o s i t i o n —a s D r . B a l I y s u p p o s e s m e t o b e —o f n o t b e i n g a b l e to p o i n t to a s in g le d if f e r e n c e b e tw e e n th e tw o p s y c h o lo g ie s , i t w o u l d a m o u n t to e x a c tly th e s a m e t h i n g as n o t b e in g a b le to m a k e p la u s ib le th e d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n th e p e c u li­ a r itie s o f th e E n g lis h a n d th e A m e ric a n s , o r th e F r e n c h a n d th e G e r m a n s . I h a v e n o t in v e n te d th e s e d iffe re n c e s ; y o u c a n r e a d a b o u t th e m in i n n u m e r a b le b o o k s a n d n e w s p a p e rs ; a s jo k e s t h e y a r e o n e v e r y b o d y ’s t o n g u e , a n d a n y o n e w h o f a i l s t o s e e t h a t th e r e a r e o n e o r tw o p s y c h o lo g ic a l d iffe re n c e s b e tw e e n F r e n c h ­ m e n a n d G e rm a n s m u s t h a v e c o m e fro m th e b a c k o f b e y o n d a n d k n o w n o th in g a b o u t o u r E u r o p e a n m a d h o u s e . A re w e r e a lly to b e lie v e th a t a tr ib e w h ic h h a s w a n d e re d th r o u g h h is to r y fo r s e v e r a l t h o u s a n d y e a r s a s “ G o d 's c h o s e n p e o p l e ” w a s n o t p u t u p to s u c h a n id e a b y s o m e q u i t e s p e c ia l p s y c h o lo g ic a l p e c u lia r ity ? I f n o d if f e r e n c e s e x is t, h o w d o w e r e c o g n iz e J e w s a t a ll? >029 P s y c h o lo g ic a l d iffe re n c e s o b t a i n b e tw e e n a ll n a tio n s a n d ra c e s , a n d e v e n b e tw e e n th e i n h a b i t a n t s o f Z u r ic h , B a s e l, a n d B e r n . ( W h e r e e ls e w o u l d a l l th e g o o d jo k e s c o m e fr o m ? ) T h e r e a r e in fa c t d iffe re n c e s b e tw e e n fa m ilie s a n d b e tw e e n in d iv id u a ls . T h a t is w h y I a t t a c k e v e r y l e v e l l i n g p s y c h o l o g y w h e n i t r a i s e s a c la im to u n iv e r s a l v a lid ity , as f o r in s ta n c e th e F r e u d i a n a n d th e A d le r ia n . A ll le v e llin g p r o d u c e s h a t r e d a n d v e n o m in th e s u p ­ p re s s e d a n d m is ju d g e d ; it p re v e n ts a n y b r o a d h u m a n u n d e r ­ s t a n d i n g . A l l b r a n c h e s o f m a n k i n d u n i t e i n o n e s t e m —y e s , b u t w h a t is a s t e m w i t h o u t s e p a r a t e b r a n c h e s ? W h y t h i s r i d i c u l o u s to u c h in e s s w h e n a n y b o d y d a re s to say a n y th in g a b o u t th e p sy ­ c h o lo g ic a l d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n J e w s a n d C h ris tia n s ? E v e ry c h ild io3°

k n o w s t h a t d if f e r e n c e s e x is t. I t se e m s to b e g e n e r a lly a s s u m e d th a t i n ta b lin g th e d is c u s ­ s io n o f e t h n o lo g ic a l d if f e r e n c e s m y s o le p u r p o s e w a s to b l u r t o u t m y “ n o to r io u s ” a n ti- S e m itis m . A p p a r e n tly n o o n e b e lie v e s th a t I —a n d o t h e r s —m i g h t a l s o h a v e s o m e t h i n g g o o d a n d a p p r e c i a t i v e to say. W h a te v e r it b e , a n d h o w e v e r c r itic a l i t b e , I w o u ld n e v e r h a v e th e a u d a c ity to m a in ta in th a t " te n trib e s a r e a c c u rs e d a n d

two alone holy.” T h a t saying comes from no C hristian. My criticism and appreciation w ill always keep well outside this glaring contrast, and will contain n o th in g that cannot be dis­ cussed civilly. 1OS1 I express no value-judgm ents, n o r do I in ten d any veiled ones. I have been engaged for m any years on the problem of im ponderable differences which everybody knows and nobody can really define. T h ey are am ong the most difficult problem s of psychology and probably for th at reason are a taboo area which none may en ter on pain of death. T o m any people it is an insult if one credits them w ith a special psychological idiosyncrasy, and in dealing w ith parties and nations one m ust be even m ore careful. T h a t is why any investigation of these im ponderables is so extraordinarily difficult, because, as well as doing his work, the investigator has to perform a grotesque egg-balancing dance aro u n d highly charged sensibilities. It is high tim e the prac­ tising psychologist understood m ore about these psychic imponderabilia, because from them arise a good half of the things th at go wrong in the world. Anyone who could define the nature of these im ponderable differences w ould truly have gazed deep in to the mystery of the hum an soul. For my part, I do n o t belong to those savants who concern themselves exclusively w ith w hat is know n already—an extrem ely useful activity, no d o u b t—b u t prefer to sniff aroun d territories w here nothing is yet known. . Consequently I am am used to find myself cast in the role of the n itw it who is unable to spot a single difference betw een Jews an d Christians. I t is, in spite of Bally, an u n d o u b ted fact that the difference exists, ju st as w ater existed before the chem ist dis­ covered H 2O; b u t it cannot be grasped as yet, because all the views th at have been p u t forw ard so far are unsatisfactory. T hese purely cognitive difficulties have, however, nothing to do w ith the question of w hether the im ponderables exist. I intend shortly to publish a few no d o u b t very inadequate an d arguable apergus on this subject. I am as little capable as anybody else of p u ttin g forward anything final, b u t I shall be content if I succeed in provoking discussion. I w ould like to b rin g the par­ ties together ro u n d a conference-table, so th at they could at last get to know and acknowledge th eir differences. Very often this sort of knowledge is the way to understanding. I wish I could

do the same fo r the brothers in enm ity on the left a n d rig h t of the R hine. N atu rally n o th in g like this can be attem p ted w ith ­ o u t in v itin g the kicks of b o th sides. 1033 W o u ld th e cure be successful? T h e possibility of defeat in a good cause has never alarm ed me. 1034 But, m y p u b lic w ill object, why raise the Jew ish problem today of all days an d in G erm any of all places? P ardon me, I raised it long ago, as anybody knows who is acquainted w ith the literatu re. I d id n o t speak ab o u t it only since the revolution; I have been officially cam paigning for criticism of subjective psy­ chological prem ises as a necessary reform in psychology ever since 1913.4 T h is has n o th in g to do w ith the form of the G er­ m an state. If I am to be exploited for political ends, th ere’s n o th ­ ing I can do to stop it. O r can anyone stop anything he pleases in Germ any? I t is ra th e r late in the day for my critical attitu d e to a ttra ct atte n tio n only now, an d it is, alas, characteristic th at it should be construed in such a way as to suggest th at Nazism alone has le n t wings to m y criticism . I t is, I frankly adm it, a highly u n fo rtu n ate an d disconcerting coincidence th at my scien­ tific program m e should, w ith o u t any assistance of m ine and against my express wish, have been lined u p w ith a political m anifesto. B u t an event of this kind, although reg rettab le in itself, often has the consequence of v en tilatin g problem s which w ould otherw ise be sedulously avoided.5 * {Actually, a s h o rt w h ile before, w hen J u n g stip u la te d th a t th e an a ly st m u st be analysed. T h e first referen ce to th is occurs in " T h e T h e o ry o f P sychoanalysis” (1913), in F reu d a n d Psychoanalysis, pars. 447-50 (cf. "Som e C ru cial P o in ts in Psychoanalysis,” ibid., p p . sgaf.). C f also “ A C o n trib u tio n to th e Study o f Psycho­ logical T y p e s” (1913), in Psychological T yp es, pars. 88off.; “ O n Psychological U n d e rsta n d in g ” (1914), in T h e Psychogenesis o f M e n ta l Disease, p ars. 419^; Psychological T y p e s (orig. 1921), pars. 88ff., 6o j : “A Psychological T h e o ry of T y p e s” (ig s7 ), ib id ., pars, gigf.; “ F re u d a n d J u n g : C o n tra sts” (1929), in F reu d a n d Psychoanalysis; " In tro d u c tio n to K ra n efeld t's ‘Secret W ays o f th e M in d ’ ” (1939), ib id ., pars. 747, 7 5 7 ^ - E d i t o r s .] ®[W h en th e foregoing " R e jo in d e r to D r. B ally” was p u b lish ed in th e N e u e Z u rch er Z eitu n g , a p refato ry n o te by th e E d ito r stated : “D r. B ally, in h is article 'D e u u c h sta m m ig e P sychotherapie?', was in o u r view e n title d to ta k e u p D r. J u n g ’s p ro g ra m m e as o u tlin e d In th e Z en tra lb la tt ftir P sych o th era p ie {VI:g] a n d to ex ­ press h is asto n ish m e n t th a t th o u g h D r. J u n g sta rted from th e teachings of F re u d a n d q u ite legitim ately d e p a rte d fro m them , h e d id n o t in his scientific w ritin g s su p p o rt his o p p o sitio n w ith th e differences betw een C h ristian -G erm an ic a n d Sem itic psychology, b u t o n ly a t th is p rese n t ju n c tu r e acknow ledges th e ‘su p er-

psychology of th e racial psychologists.’ " In th e issue of M arch 1 5 , 1 9 3 4 (CLV, 4 5 7 ) , J u n g rep lied as follows: [“I n th e E d ito r’s p refato ry n o te to my article, it is stated th a t I started iro n the teachings of F reu d . I d id n o t s ta rt from F reud, b u t from E ugen B leuler an d P ierre Ja n e t, w ho were my im m ediate teachers. W hen I took u p th e cud gets for F reu d in public, I already had a scientific position th a t was w idely known on account of my association experim ents, conducted independently of F reud, and th e theory of com plexes based u p o n them . My collaboration was qualified ty an objection in p rin cip le to th e sexual theory, an d it lasted u p to th e tim e when F reu d identified in p rin cip le his sexual theory w ith his m ethod. [“T h e assertion th a t I acknowledge racial psychology only a t this present ju n c­ tu re is incorrect. In 1927 I w rote: 'T h u s it is a q u ite u n p ard o n ab le m istate to accept th e conclusions of a Jew ish psychology as generally valid. Nobody would d ream of tak in g Chinese or In d ia n psychology as b in d in g u p o n ourselves. T h e cheap accusation of anti-Sem itism th a t has been levelled a t m e on th e g ro u fd of this criticism is a b o u t as in tellig en t as accusing m e of an anti-C hinese prejudice.’ [‘‘T h e R elations betw een th e Ego an d th e U nconscious” (C oll, W o rk s, V d. 7), p a r. 2 4 0 , n . 8 . ] A nd in J u n e 1 9 1 8 I w rote: ‘In my o p in io n this pro b lem does n o t exist for th e Jews. T h e Jew already h ad th e c u ltu re of th e ancient w orld and on tep of th a t has taken over th e cu ltu re o f th e n atio n s am ongst w hom he dwells. H e has two cultures, paradoxical as th a t m ay sound. H e is dom esticated to a higher degree th a n we are, b u t he is badly at a loss fo r th a t q u ality in m an w hich toots him to th e earth an d draw s new stren g th from below. T h is chthonic quality is fo u n d in dangerous concentration in th e G erm anic peoples. N atu rally th e Aryan E u ro p ean has n o t noticed any signs of th is for a very long tim e, b u t perhaps he is beginning to notice it in th e p resen t w ar; a n d again, perh ap s n ot. T h e Jew has too little of this q u ality —-where has h e his own earth underfoot? T h e mysteiy of. th e e a rth is n o joke an d n o p arad o x .’ ’’ (Supra, p ar. 1 8 . ) — E d i t o r s .]

C IR C U L A R L E T T E R (1 9 3 4 )1

Esteem ed colleagues: »035 A t the last Congress 2 o f the International G eneral M edical Society for Psychotherapy, it was decided to constitute the Society in the form of national groups.3 T herefore, national groups have n ow been form ed or are being form ed in the various countries that were represented at the Congress (Denm ark, Germany, N etherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland). T h e conditions o f m em ­ bership in these national groups vary according to the local by­ laws. Because o f the political circum stances and because national groups do n ot yet exist in all countries, so that individuals as such cannot join their respective groups, it has been decided that association w ith a national group is on a purely voluntary basis; in other words, ind ividu al m em bership is possible w ith in the framework, of the International G eneral M edical Society for Psychotherapy.4 1 [In se rted as a se p a ra te sh e e t in th e Z e n tra lb la tt, V II:6 (Dec., 1954). T h e s tip u la ­ tio n s a re b ased o n th e sta tu te s o f th e Society, p r in te d ib id ., V ir.3 .—E d i t o i i s .] a [A t th is, th e 7 th Congress fo r P sychotherapy, M ay, 1934. a t B ad N a u h e im , th e s ta tu te s of th e In te r n a tio n a l G en e ra l M edical Society fo r P sy ch o th erap y w ere ratified. J u n g ’s p re sid e n tia l address to th e Congress m ay h av e been ex tem p o re; a m s. c a n n o t be traced , b u t th e re is a su m m ary o f it in th e Z e n tra lb la ttl V II:3 . I t seem s to h av e been m u c h th e sam e in substan ce as th e “ C o n trib u tio n to a D iscus­ sio n o n P sy ch o th e ra p y " (in fra , p a rs. io6off.). [A t th e sam e Congress, J u n g d eliv ered a le ctu re, “ tlb e r K o m p le x th eo rie ,” p re v i­ ously d eliv ered o n M ay 5 a t th e F ed era l P oly tech n ic In s titu te , Z u rich , a n d p u b ­ lish ed th e sam e year as "A ligem eines zu r K o m p le x th eo rie ." Cf. “ A Review o f th e C om plex T h e o ry ,” Coll. W orks, Vol. 8, pars. 1948?. [F or J u n g ’s p re sid e n tia l address to th e 8 th Congress, h e ld in M arch 1935, a ^so a t B ad N a u h e im , see p ars. 1055S.] 8 [In o rd e r to p re v e n t an y n a tio n a l g ro u p d o m in a tin g th e Society, it w as s tip u ­ la te d in th e s ta tu te s th a t n o n a tio n a l g ro u p co u ld m u ster m o re th a n 40 p e r c e n t v o tin g stren g th .] * [By th is m eans, G erm an Jew s could re m a in m em b ers of th e In te rn a tio n a l So­ ciety th o u g h ejected from th e G erm a n n a tio n a l g ro u p (cf. in fra , p ar. 1060).]

T h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l S o c i e t y is n e u t r a l a s t o p o l i t i c s a n d c r e e d . P e rs o n s w is h in g to b e c o m e m e m b e rs o f it a r e in v ite d to c o m ­ m u n ic a te w ith th e g e n e ra l s e c re ta ria t o f th e I n te r n a tio n a l S o­ c ie ty , r e p r e s e n te d b y D r . W . C im b a l, A lto n a , o r w i t h th e p r e s i­ d e n t ’s g e n e r a l s e c r e t a r y , D r . C . A . M e i e r , B u r g h o l z l i , Z u r i c h . 1037 T h e o r g a n o f t h e S o c i e t y is t h e Z e n t r a l b l a t t f i i r P s y c h o t h e r a p i e , V e r l a g S . H i r z e l , L e i p z i g ; s u b s c r i p t i o n t o m e m b e r s , 15 R e ic h s m a r k s p e r y e a r, p o s t-p a id . 1038 W e th e r e f o r e re s p e c tfu lly in v ite y o u to jo in th e I n te r n a tio n a l G e n e r a l M e d ic a l S o c ie ty f o r P s y c h o th e r a p y .

1036

D r. C . G . J ung Z u r ic h -K u s n a c h t D e c e m b e r 1, 1934

E D IT O R IA L (1935}1 A lthough severely shaken by contemporary events, the In ter­ national General Medical Society for Psychotherapy and its organ the Zentralblatt have consolidated their position during the past year, which began with the Congress at Bad N auheim .2 1040 Psychotherapy, after outgrowing the initial chaos of u n ­ systematized tricks and techniques used by all branches of m edi­ cine that came into contact with the neuroses, gradually devel­ oped into a discipline whose scope and content entitled it to be called “medical psychology,” and to be accounted a specialized subject on its own. A t one time its arsenal of knowledge con­ sisted merely of a few tags of popular wisdom, a dose of “sound common sense,” and a tip or two from suggestion therapy; b u t today it has become an extensive field of science with continually w idening problems. These undoubtedly raise, and have already raised, philosophical issues. T h e proper subject of medical psy­ chology—the sick psyche—cannot be artificially separated from its wider background, the hum an psyche in general, though in practice this separation is effected by the illness itself. A nd al­ though it is necessary to trace the deviations of pathological psychic developm ent in all its details, in evaluating its findings medical research m ust in the end take its stand on norm al ob­ servations and average values. As a result, any psychopathology th at claims to be practical is inevitably led beyond itself into the sphere of norm al psychology, and thus into the dom ain of phi­ losophy. T h is is one of the many overlappings so characteristic of m odern medicine: one has only to think of physiological chemistry and microbiology. T hus what began as psychotherapy has become an independent branch of science which has already swallowed u p all that was. formerly m eant by psychopathology.

j °39

1 [Published in th e Zentralblatt, V IlI:i ( 1 9 3 5 , m onth not indicated), 1-5.— E d i t o r s .] * [T h e 7th Congress for Psychotherapy. See supra, pars. 1016, n. *, and 1035, n. 2.]

1041

1042

T o d a y n o psychopathology is conceivable th a t could g 't along w ith o u t th e insights a n d discoveries of the psychotherapists. F or a long tim e past, p ractical psychological tre a tm e n t has d riv e n the specialist to elab o rate his views in th e form of theories, because these are indisp en sable for a n o rd erly presen­ tatio n of the em p irical facts. Science c a n n o t exist w ith o u t hy­ potheses. B u t if hypotheses are m ade, in tellectu al in teg rity in ­ evitably dem ands, in m y view, a criticism of the prem ises. A n hypothesis does n o t rest only on th e a p p a re n t testim ony of experience, it rests also on th e ju d g m e n t of the observer. If criticism of th e prem ises u n d e rly in g a ju d g m e n t is needed any­ w here, it is need ed in psychology. (T h is is n o t the place for len g th y p h ilosophical discussions, th erefo re a h in t m u st suf­ fice.) T h e accusation has been m ade in certain q u arte rs th a t the new er psychotherapy is concerned too m uch w ith philosophical problem s a n d n o t en o u g h w ith the m in u tia e of case-histories. T h is accusation m u st b e em ph atically re b u tte d , because p h il­ osophical problem s belo n g in the h ighest degree to any em p ir­ ical study of the psyche, as fit subjects b o th for research a n d for philosophical criticism . T h e em p irical intellect, occupying itself w ith th e m in u tia e of case-histories, in v o lu n ta rily im p o rts its ow n philosophical prem ises n o t only in to the arra n g e m e n t b u t also in to th e ju d g m e n t of th e m aterial, and even in to the ap ­ p aren tly objective p resen tatio n of th e data. If psychotherapists today are b e g in n in g to talk a b o u t a W eltanschauung, a philos­ ophy of life, this m erely proves th a t they have discovered the existence of c ertain b ro ad assum ptions w hich w ere form erly overlooked in th e m ost ing en u o u s m an n er. W h a t is the use of even th e m ost accurate an d p u n ctilio u s w ork if it is p reju d ic ed by an unavow ed assum ption? A ny science w orthy of the nam e m u st criticize its ow n assum ptions. F reu d him self d id n o t sh rin k from the m ajo r philosophical task of d e b u n k in g religious as­ su m p tio n s “once a n d for all.” H is intellectu al d evelopm ent shows very clearly how th e p roblem s of m edical psychology logically cu lm in ate in criticism , o r at any rate polem ical discus­ sion, of its ow n prem ises. A d e p a rtu re of this k in d is n o t an ab e rra tio n ; it is th e positive d u ty of any grow ing science, and m oreover it b rings a b o u t a b ro ad en in g , deepening, a n d e n ric h ­ in g of its discoveries.

>°43

Since psychotherapy p u rp o rts to be a m eth o d of healing, it m u st in clu d e am ong its aim s th e need to change a less ad ap ted a ttitu d e , such as we see in every m o rb id state, in to a norm ally adap ted a ttitu d e . T h e adaptedness of a psychic system, however, is always re la te d to the situ atio n of the m om ent, a n d is th e re ­ fore n o t fixed in a n u n changing p attern . A daptedness is n o t a p erm an e n t a n d p erm an en tly valid state which, once reached, can be m a in tain e d for ever; it is a co n tin u ally advancing process w hich has as its indispensable prem ise the constant observation o f changes o ccu rrin g b o th w ith in an d w ithout. A system of heal­ in g th at fails to take account of th e epoch-m aking representa­ tions collectives of a political, econom ic, philosophical, or re ­ ligious n a tu re , o r assiduously refuses to recognize them as actual forces, hardly deserves th e nam e of therapy. I t is m ore a devia­ tio n in to a pathologically exaggerated a ttitu d e of p ro test w hich is th e very reverse of adapted. A daptedness as a c rite rio n of cure is absolutely necessary, th ough of course it is n o t the only one. 1044 Discussion of general assum ptions an d leading ideas is a m ost im p o rta n t item in the present phase o f psychotherapy, because it brings in to the lim elig h t assum ptions th a t tacitly exist a n d are all the m ore dangerous fo r th at reason. In no circum stances can psychotherapy be a single m ethod o r a single system. Ind iv id u als a n d th e ir tem peram ents vary so fu n d am entally th a t all form s of schem atism a n d dogm atism can n o t be got rid of quickly enough if psychotherapy is n o t to com e to a dead end. 1045 T h e p ecu liar n a tu re of psychogenic insecurity an d disease, as well as th eir enorm ous incidence, m ake the extension of psy­ chotherapy to w ider fields an u rg en t necessity, m ore p articu larly because paedogogics, by definition, does n o t b o th er a b o u t the edu catio n of adults, an d the churches have n o th in g to say to vast n u m b ers of people. T h e churches, it is true, have only them ­ selves to blam e if people confuse religion w ith a creed and, see­ ing no need to believe in anything, prom ptly take th a t as a proof th a t relig io n is superfluous. E xperience shows th a t re ­ ligion is, a t the very least, a psychic fact th at has existed from tim e im m em orial a n d expresses itself in a thousand different forms. P ro testan t theology, strangely deluded, calls this view “psychologism ” a n d in so d o in g robs itself of the m ost effective m eans of co m b attin g m a n ’s insecurity—the confessional, w hich the C atholic C h u rch has wisely ap p ro p riated for the benefit of

m ankind. M odem psychotherapy has no such aspirations, b u t often it is virtually com pelled to assume spiritual guidance in a realm th at properly an d originally belonged to the pastoral cure of souls, and is thus faced w ith an educative task w hich makes the m ost exacting dem ands on the knowledge arid com petence of the therapist. T h o u g h he may decline to cope w ith them on the plea of professional incom petence, they are really q u ite m anage­ able if only he w ill fulfil the necessary conditions. A t this point practical treatm ent im pinges directly upon such questions as a philosophy of life, an d there is no sense w hatever in brushing them aside as irrelevant, thus cu ttin g the p a tien t off from that m uch needed relationship and adaptation to the great problem s of the age and condem ning him to a neurotic hole-and-corner existence. T h a t w ould be the very th in g th at psychotherapy does n o t envisage. 1046 T h e hum an psyche, even w hen in a pathological condition, is a com plex whole actuated n o t only by instinctual processes an d personal relationships b u t by the spiritual needs an d suprapersonal currents of the time. A nd ju st as the general practi­ tioner is rightly expected to. know the norm al anatom y and physiology of the body he has to treat, so the psychotherapist will sooner o r later feel constrained to know everything that is of vital im portance to the life of the psyche. H e w ill, in short, have to approach psychology as one of the hum ane sciences. T h a t this may prove inconvenient to a doctor train ed m ainly in the n a tu ra l sciences is altogether understandable; b u t the grow th of m edicine has dem onstrated again and again th at its disciples, after a little hesitation, were ready to learn m ore. Psychotherapy is an interm ediate field of research which requires the collaboration of m any different branches of learning. I t will be the task of the fu tu re to decide very carefully w herein the com petence of each branch lies. 1047 In accordance w ith the line of developm ent suggested here, the next Congresses w ill be concerned on the one hand w ith the specifically m edical relations betw een psychology an d endo­ crinology, an d on the o th er hand w ith its relation, as a hum ane science, to oriental symbolism. 1048 D u rin g the past year the organization of th e In tern atio n al Society has made, in some part, satisfactory progress. T h e G er­ m an group was, a t the tim e of the last Congress, already firmly

organized u n d e r th e d irectio n of Professor G oring. Since th en there have b een ad d ed a D utch g roup, th e “N eth erlan d s Society for Psychotherapy,” w ith thirty-tw o m em bers u n d e r the presi­ dency of D r. van d er H oop in A m sterdam , and a D anish g ro u p w ith ten m em bers u n d e r the presidency of D r. O. BriieI in C openhagen. Finally, a Swiss g ro u p w ith fo u rteen m em bers u n d e r th e presidency of th e u n d ersigned was recently founded in Z urich, b earin g th e nam e of th e “Swiss Society for Practical Psychology.” *°49 T h e difficulties of establishing relations w ith neurological a n d psychiatric societies, n o t u n k n o w n elsewhere, have placed considerable obstacles in th e way of fo u n d in g a Swedish g ro u p by D r. P o u l B jerre in Stockholm , so th a t n o agreem ent has been reached u p to th e present. 1050 T h e w ork of th e groups outside G erm any is organized in d if­ feren t ways. C openhagen has two o r three m eetings a year, w ith lectures o n specialized subjects. A m sterdam has fo u r m eetings a year. Z urich has a m eetin g every m o n th , w ith a com m on p ro ­ gram m e of w ork in w hich, a t present, the psychology of dream s is b ein g w orked o u t systematically. 1051 T h e frag m en tatio n o f psychology in to various schools a n d in to even m ore n u m ero u s separate theories makes it desirable th a t discussion in the sp irit o f co llab o ratio n am ong colleagues sh o u ld be fostered m ore th a n ever in the fu tu re. I n this way cer­ ta in m isunderstandings w ould be rem oved a n d m any questions clarified w hich a t p resen t rem ain unsolved for w an t of co-opera­ tion. G. G. J u n g

E D IT O R IA L N O T E ( 1 9 3 5 ) 1 E arlier, a S candinavian a n d a D u tc h issue w ere p u b lish ed by th e Z entralblattj a n d a Swiss issue is now b e in g p resen ted this year. As S w itzerland is a trilin g u a l co u n try , we have n o t hesi­ ta te d to in clu d e a c o n trib u tio n in F rench (by P rofessor Baud o u in , G eneva). T h e re are also tw o c o n trib u tio n s in E nglish by tw o w riters w ho have sp e n t several years stu d y in g in Zurich. T h e y are H . G. Baynes, L o n d o n , w ho was m y assistant for several years, a n d E sth er H a rd in g , N ew York, a u th o r of th e deservedly w ell-know n works T h e W ay o f A l l W o m e n a n d W o m a n ’s M ys­ teries. A lth o u g h E nglish is n o t one of th e th re e official languages of Sw itzerland, unofficially it is th e fo u rth , as is show n am ong o th e r th in g s by th e fact th a t for years I have b een in v ite d to give E nglish lectures in Z urich. *053 T h e greatest d a n g e r th a t th re ate n s psychology is one-sided­ ness a n d insistence o n a single stan d p o in t. In o rd e r to do ju stice to th e p h en o m en a of th e psyche, a variety of view points is needed. J u st as th e re are p o in ts of view based o n race psychol­ ogy, so also th e re are n a tio n a l ones, a n d we m ay w elcom e it as a n e n ric h m e n t of o u r ex p erien ce th a t we have succeeded in in ­ c lu d in g in o u r issues c o n trib u tio n s from th e R o m an ce a n d the A nglo-Saxon m in d . *«>54 T h e pro b lem s of psychiatry are n o t sim plified by concen­ tra tin g o n one single aspect to th e exclusion of all th e others, fo r each in d iv id u a l psychic fact is decisively influenced by its re la tio n to th e w hole; in d eed , its real significance can be dis­ covered only w hen its p o sitio n in th e w hole has b een ascertained. I t w o u ld th erefo re seem m o re v alu ab le a t p resen t to m ap o u t th e scope of th e w hole th a n to investigate in d iv id u a l psychic processes in d etail, on a g en eral assu m p tio n th a t is as uncon»05*

1

[P ublished in th e Z entralblatt, V III:2 (1 9 3 5 , m onth n o t indicated), 6 5 .— E d i t o r s . ]

552

scious as it is incorrect. T o this en d we need the consensus g e n tiu m , w hich is in any case the fo u n d atio n stone of an in te r­ n atio n al Society a n d its organ. T o p rom ote in te rn a tio n a l col­ la b o ra tio n is one of the c u ltu ra l characteristics of Sw itzerland, and this sh o u ld also give th e Swiss issue its ow n pecu liar stam p. C. G.

J ung

P R E S ID E N T IA L A D D R E SS T O T H E 8 T H G E N E R A L M E D IC A L C O N G R E S S F O R P S Y C H O T H E R A P Y , BAD N A U H E IM , 1935 1 I t is now a year since th e In te rn a tio n a l M edical Society fo r P sychotherapy was fo u n d ed . D u rin g th a t year th e G erm an g ro u p has b een organized u n d e r th e successful lead ersh ip of D r. Goiring. T h e n th e N eth e rla n d s Society for P sychotherapy jo in e d th e In te rn a tio n a l Society u n d e r th e lead ersh ip of D r. van d e r H o o p . I n C op en h ag en , a D anish g ro u p was organized by D r. B ruel. A Swiss g ro u p has recen tly b een fo u n d ed in Z urich u n d e r nay presidency. D r. B jerre w rites to m e from Stockholm th at, owintg to e x te rn a l difficulties, it has so far n o t b een possible for h im tto organize a Swedish g ro u p . L et us h o pe th a t th e second year iin th e life of o u r Society w ill find h im m o re successful. A little w hile ago Professor Stransky, of V ienna, got in to u c h w ith nae a b o u t th e fo u n d in g of a n A u strian g roup, so th ere appears to be a good chance th a t th e Society w ill also in clu d e A ustria. 1056 i t seems, how ever, th a t i t is n o t p artic u la rly easy to b rin g all those doctors a n d psychologists w ho are co n cern ed w ith psycho­ th erap y o r a p p lie d psychology ih to a n e u tra l organization. T h e Teasons for th is—a p a rt fro m th e fact th a t som e of th e m m ay have becom e u n d erstan d ab ly tire d of societies—fall in to tw o groups. T h e first com prises all those difficulties w hich a y oung science always has to c o n ten d w ith . P sychotherapy is still a ch ild th a t is n o t very su re of itself. M oreover, i t has tw o e ld e r sisters w ho w atch over its g ro w th w ith som ew hat m ixed feelings a n d often d isp u te its rig h t to in d ep en d en ce. T h e se sisters are psychiatry a n d neurology. A lth o u g h th ere are praisew orthy exceptions am o n g th e p ractitio n ers o f these sciences, psychotherapy, b eing pre-em in en tly psychological in its o u tlo o k a n d its m ethods, has as a ru le eked o u t a n exceedingly scanty existence u n d e r th e ir

>055

1 [March 87--30,1935. Previously unpublished. Cf. supra, par. 1039.—Enrroas.]

auspices. I do not want to reproach them for this, for both psy­ chiatry and neurology have a perfect right to their own special problems, which have little enough in common with those of psychotherapy. O n the other hand, it is not permissible for them to claim a right to take psychotherapy under their w ing merely because the one is concerned with mental diseases and the other with nervous diseases. T h e functional psychological disturb­ ances, or psychoneuroses, are by nature a special field im pinging neither on the psychiatric clinic nor on the dom ain of neurology. Modern psychotherapy has developed beyond that early stage of its career when it was nothing more than fatherly advice or sug­ gestion with or without hypnosis, and has become a proper m ethod of psychological treatment for the use of specialists. T his fact is overlooked not only by the public but, all too often, by doctors as well. »«>57 T h e other reasons why the organization of our professional colleagues meets with difficulties have to do with psychological cross-currents w ithin the profession itself. Objective discussion am ong professionals is not yet possible to the degree that a strictly scientific approach would require. T here are certain groups of doctors who put forward theories with totalitarian pre­ tensions and barricade themselves against criticism to such an extent that their scientific convictions are more like a confession of faith. T h is kind of attitude is a substitute for religion, though no objection could be made to this if only it were admitted. On the contrary, we could understand very w ell that it is the psy­ chotherapists who feel most acutely the need for religious con­ victions, since the religions are in fact the oldest systems for healing the sufferings of the soul. But unlike religious ideas, these psychological theories are notably intellectualistic as well as anti-religious. Thus, we are confronted with the uncomfort­ able fact that in psychotherapy there are not only different the­ ories—which in itself would be a matter for congratulation—but different convictions which are apparently indisputable—a phe­ nom enon that is otherwise found only in the realm of political or religious controversy. >058 In the face of all these difficulties, the International Society maintains, first, o f all, that psychotherapy is an independent branch of m edicine and, secondly, that scientific truths cannot be substantiated by uncritical and one-sided convictions. Ac-

C IV IL IZ A T IO N

IN T R A N S IT IO N

cordingly, it w elcom es ad h eren ts of all schools so far as they are w illin g to a d o p t an o bjective stan d p o in t. »059 I th erefo re earnestly hope th a t in the course of tim e all those of o u r colleagues w ho wish to see psychotherapy developing alo n g b ro ad e r lines w ill associate them selves w ith us.

C O N T R IB U T IO N T O A D ISC U SSIO N ON PSY CH O TH ER A PY 1 1060

I can only agree w ith th e g en eral statem ents an d in ten tio n s of the re p o rt we have ju st h eard .2 T h e sam e difficulties th a t exist in Sw itzerland for psychotherapy also exist abroad. As a m em ber of th e b o ard of th e In te rn a tio n a l Society I have sought for years to b rin g a b o u t u n d e rsta n d in g betw een the d ifferen t schools of psychotherapy. N o less th an three works have b een w ritte n by m em bers of m y school (W . M. K ranefeldt, G. R . H ey er, G e rh ard A dler), w hich all en d eav o u r to give a fair survey of the d ifferen t scientific standpoints. I h ad been h o n o rary p resid en t of th e Society for several years w hen th e rev o lu tio n in G erm an y b roke o u t. T h e th e n p resid en t resigned, a n d a g ro u p of lead in g G er­ m an psychotherapists cam e to m e w ith th e req u est th a t I take over th e presidency, firstly in o rd er to su p p o rt a beleaguered psychotherapy in its struggle for existence, an d secondly in o rd er to preserve its in te rn a tio n a l contacts. O u t of reg ard for th e posi­ tio n of psychotherapy in E u ro p e I felt I had no rig h t to w ithdraw from this difficult an d p ain fu l task, an d th erefo re decided to accept th e presidency of th e In te rn a tio n a l Society. In d o in g so, I was n o t for o n e m o m en t unaw are th a t in these days it is a m a tte r of the greatest difficulty to establish an in te rn a tio n a l asso­ ciatio n w ith o u t ex clu d in g G erm any, alth o u g h it is a medical society far rem oved from any p o litical activity. T h e Gleich1 [In M ay 1935. D r. W . M o r g e n th a le r , a n official o f t h e Sw iss s e c tio n o f th e I n t e r ­ n a ti o n a l G e n e r a l M e d ic a l S o ciety fo r P s y c h o th e ra p y , o rg a n iz e d a s y m p o s iu m o n “ P s y c h o th e ra p y in S w itz e r la n d ." J u n g d e liv e re d a le c tu r e e n ti tl e d “ W h a t Is P s y ­ c h o th e r a p y ? " (C o ll. W o r k s , V o l. 16, p a rs . a8ff.). A d is c u s s io n fo llo w e d , a n d J u n g c o n t r i b u t e d th e p r e s e n t r e m a r k s (s ty le d “ V o tu m C . G . J u n g ”), w h ic h w e re p u b ­ lis h e d in t h e S c h w e ize r isc h e A r z te z e itu n g fi ir S ta n d e s fr a g e n (B e rn ), X V I (1935): *6, 345E , to g e th e r w ith h is le c tu r e ( p p . 335!!.).— E d i t o r s . ] 2

[B y D r. M o r g e n th a le r .—E d i t o r s . ]

schaltung 8 of the G erm an group was inevitable. Protest w ould sim ply have p u t an end to psychotherapy in Germ any. In these circumstances one had to be content w ith saving w hat was pos­ sible. Jewish doctors are excluded from the G erm an group by the A ryan regulations, b u t I have succeeded in getting the draft of the in tern ational statutes am ended so th at G erm an Jewish doctors can individually become m em bers of the Society as a w hole.4 N ational groups now exist in the N etherlands, D en­ m ark, and Switzerland. T h e F reudian sp irit of sectarianism p u t the greatest obstacles in the way of an A ustrian group, and a political cam paign was started in the press by the corresponding elem ents in Switzerland. T hese regrettable attem pts to render objective discussion impossible from the start by sowing political suspicion on the one hand and sectarian discord on the other should n o t prevent fair-m inded doctors who have the scientific developm ent of th eir work at h eart from doing th e ir utm ost to reach agreem ent. I have therefore gladly accepted the invita­ tio n to take p art in the program m e of work proposed by the p lan n in g com m ittee. 1061 For a variety of reasons it is probably better if psychothera­ pists, w ith a view to safeguarding th eir scientific and profes­ sional interests, do not constitute a group w ithin a psychiatric society. T h e divergence of interests is too great for direct col­ laboration to be profitable. In G erm any too the separation of psychotherapy from psychiatry has proved to be a com pelling necessity. B ut if psychotherapy is to achieve its independence, its representatives m ust for b e tter or worse gather ro u n d the con­ ference table and lay aside the autistic fads and fancies which have been so very rightly stressed by Dr. M orgenthaler. 1062 i t is, in my hum ble opinion, high tim e for psychotherapists to become conscious of their social responsibilities. T h e con­ cept of psychotherapy has reached the w ider public; there are large num bers of psychotherapists—so m any th at one can w ith­ o u t exaggeration speak of them as a “profession” ; a copious lit­ erature exists and has an eager following; and finally psycho­ therapy, originally the concern of m edical m en, has come to extend so far beyond its original boundaries th at its oldest initia8 [ S e e s u p r a , p a r . 1 0 1 8 .] * [ S e e s u p r a , p a n . 1 0 3 5 8 .]

tor, F reu d himself, today thinks very differently ab o u t lay therapy from w hat he did before. T h e psychotherapist is now firmly entrenched w ith the public, so his social responsibility has already begun. B ut it becomes an urgent problem in view of the incontrovertible fact that the practice of psychotherapy to­ day is largely in the hands of “medical laym en.’’ T o anticipate a t once, I am no t speaking of those incom petent and irrespon­ sible quacks whom the law is quite capable of catching, b u t of altogether serious teachers and psychologists whose previous train in g enables them to exert an educative influence. Since applied psychotherapy is largely educative in essence, it can hardly refrain from collaborating w ith the educator w ithout im poverishing itself. Ju st as the m edical practitioner makes p len tifu l use of lay assistants, and is even dependent on them in large measure, so the psychotherapist has need of auxiliary m ethods which he is bound to leave to helpers who are no t m edically trained. I need only m ention physiotherapy an d its various uses, special educative techniques, and so on. In my opinion it w ould be q uite wrong for m edical psychotherapists to shun these n atu ral fellow-workers and brand them all quacks. O n the o th er hand, the doctor has every interest in not allow­ ing the pretentious aspirations that are fostered in num erous pedagogic institutes and in certain philosophy departm ents to ru n rio t; instead, he w ill gradually confine the various fields of activity w ithin their proper lim its by wise collaboration. B ut if he shuts his eyes to the very existence of legitim ate psychological workers, he n o t only fails to elim inate those tendencies by this ostrich policy, b u t denies himself the m uch-needed insight into the m anifold branches of educational therapy today, and, fur­ therm ore, deprives them of the one essential: eventual medical surveillance and control. T h e International Medical Society for Psychotherapy is concerning itself in a positive way w ith the problem of practising psychologists and technical assistants when it clearly recognizes the dangers of a wildly proliferating and medically uncontrollable psychological lay movement. »°6$ Recently, as so often in the course of the last twenty years, it has been asserted that lay interest in psychological questions is on the decrease and that, because neuroses are either endocrine disturbances or m ild forms of psychosis, all psychotherapy is superfluous. I w ould like to u tte r an urgent w arning against

such errors. V arious psychological trends m ay fall o u t of fash­ ion, b u t psychological p roblem s in g eneral are far m ore deeply ro o te d in th e p u b lic th a n is realized outside the psychothera­ p eu tic profession. In this respect the psychotherapist is faced w ith social resp o n sib ilities w h ich sooner o r la te r w ill m ake closer association w ith his fellow -w orkers an absolute necessity, q u ite a p a rt from th e econom ic co n sid erations to w hich D r. M orgenth a le r has d raw n a tte n tio n .

P R E S ID E N T IA L ADDRESS T O T H E 9T H IN T E R N A T IO N A L M EDICA L CONGRESS F O R PSY C H O TH ER A PY , C O PEN H A G EN , 19371 1064

For the first tim e our Society is convening here in Copen­ hagen, at the friendly invitation of the Scandinavian national groups. O u r decision to hold the Congress outside its previous confines dem onstrates its international nature. T h e Society has long felt the need n o t only to overcome the geographical and linguistic barriers but, even m ore im portant, to extend the fron­ tiers of m edical psychotherapy as a science. However m uch the psychotherapist in his practical work m ust concentrate on the individual patient and on the most m inute details, as a scientist he needs a view point that widens his horizon, no t just for his own sake, b u t for that of his patients, whose alm ost limitless differences dem and of him a correspondingly broad understand­ ing. Any narrow adherence to artificial lim its w ould be a catas­ trophe for o u r science, w hether these lim its be national, political, linguistic, religious, or philosophical. A lthough every investi­ gator is lim ited as an individual, an d m ust work w ithin his individual lim its, his self-lim itation loses all m eaning if there is no living contact w ith the diversity of other points of view. So if in the course of the last few years we have succeeded, despite considerable external difficulties, not only in preserving o u r original Society b u t in establishing its internationality on a series of national groups—G erm an, D utch, Danish, Swedish, A ustrian, and Swiss—we have at least laid the foundations of its fu rth er developm ent. I t is our liveliest wish to welcome our French and English colleagues also as future m em bers of our Society. A t a tim e like this, when historical necessity lays so m uch stress on the developm ent of national individuality, the problem of international relationships becomes equally urg en t by way of compensation. T h e nations of Europe form a EuroI [October s-4, 1937. Pieviouely unpublished.]

pean family, which like every fam ily has its own special spirit. How ever far ap art the political goals may lie, they rest u lti­ m ately on the com m on E uropean psyche, w ith whose aspects the practising psychologist should be fam iliar. 1065 You will I am sure agree w ith m e th a t the conditions for an in tern atio n al organization are extrem ely precarious today. But this should n ot d eter us from doing everything in o u r power, however lim ited it may be in these unfavourable times, to pre­ serve the h u m an and psychic ties of the E uropean fam ily and also to practise in the international sphere w hat we daily seek to inculcate in o u r patients. By this I m ean the avoidance of that basic evil, projections upon our neighbour. For everything that exists there are, as we know only too well, sufficient reasons, and only a bad psychologist will fail to appreciate th eir full sig­ nificance. It is the task of o u r science to understand an d classify all varieties of hum an behaviour. Faced w ith such a bew ildering diversity of aspects an d viewpoints, psychology can continue to function only if it abandons all hasty com m itm ent to dogmas an d doctrinaire convictions and allows every view to express itself freely so far as there are sufficient reasons to su p p o rt it. In science there is no sp irit of sectarianism w hich decides the tru th . Being the science of the psyche, psychology is the sum total of w hat the psyche says about itself. H ence everything is psycho­ logically tru e th at psychologically exists. B ut the things th a t psy­ chologically exist are innum erable. I can therefore wish nothing b etter for o u r Society, an d in p articu lar for this Congress, th an th at every opinion should be expressed and listened to, and th at as m any nations as possible should m ake their ow n par­ ticu lar c o n trib u tio n to the total picture of the E uropean psyche. 1066 I still have the painful d uty of recalling a loss th at o u r Society has suffered d u rin g the past year. R obert Sommer, th e co-founder an d for m any years the first president of the G eneral M ed­ ical Society for Psychotherapy, died on February 3rd. T h an k s to his wide knowledge of philosophy and psychology, an d espe­ cially of fam ilial research, he was draw n to our special field and its w orking hypotheses. H is decision to throw in his lot w ith us and his readiness to collaborate w ith o u r endeavours deserve n o t only o u r heartfelt thanks b u t also the highest praise, as this h ap ­ pen ed at a tim e w hen the psychological p o in t of view in m edi­ cine was still open to p ublic attack. In these circumstances it

was a n act o f courage th a t m ade psychotherapy possible in G er­ m any a n d to a large ex ten t k ep t it alive. Som m er’s su p p o rt for psychotherapy was, together w ith E ugen B leu ler’s, of decisive im p o rtan ce for th e fu rth e r developm ent of the new ideas. 1067 I would like to ask you to rise from your seats in memory of our loyal friend and supporter. 1068 Ladies a n d G entlem en, th e gth Congress of the In te r­ n atio n a l G e n eral M edical Society for Psychotherapy is opened. T o th e org anizing com m ittee, an d to Dr. Briiel a n d D r. B jerre in p artic u la r, I express th e Society’s thanks for the in v itatio n as well as for th e w ork of p rep a rin g the Congress. I now leave the floor to D r. BrueL

P R E S ID E N T IA L ADDRESS T O T H E IO TH IN T E R N A T IO N A L M ED IC A L CONGRESS FO R PSY C H O T H E R A PY , O X FO R D , 19381 1069

W h e n w e m e t a t C o p e n h a g e n la s t y e a r , i t w a s t h e firs t tim e

th a t o u r C o n g re ss h a d b e e n h e ld o u ts id e G e rm a n y . A n d so o n a f te r w a r d s o u r B r itis h c o lle a g u e s s u g g e s te d a r r a n g in g a m e e tin g i n E n g la n d . I t h a s a lw a y s b e e n m y d e s ir e to e s ta b lis h a l i n e o f c o m m u n ic a tio n b e tw e e n c o n tin e n ta l p s y c h o lo g ic a l m e d ic in e a n d E n g la n d , w h e r e , w i t h i n th e la s t te n y e a rs , so m u c h h a s b e e n d o n e f o r th e c a u s e o f p s y c h o th e r a p y a n d w h e re th e r e a re a lre a d y so m a n y p h y s ic ia n s in te r e s te d e i t h e r in th e t r e a tm e n t o f n e u ro s e s o r i n th e p s y c h o lo g ic a l a s p e c t o f illn e s s i n g e n e r a l. I a m s u r e t h a t I s p e a k in th e n a m e o f a ll m y c o n tin e n ta l c o lle a g u e s w h e n I e x ­ p re ss m y p r o f o u n d g r a titu d e to th is g o o d to w n o f O x fo rd , o f a n c i e n t fa m e , to o u r E n g lis h f r ie n d s , a n d to a ll th o s e w h o s e b e n e v o le n c e a n d frie n d ly s u p p o r t h a s m a d e th e o rg a n iz a tio n o f th e C o n g re s s p o s s ib le . W e a r e d e e p ly in d e b te d to th e o r g a n iz in g c o m m itte e , i n p a r t i c u l a r to D r. B a y n e s , D r . S tra u s s , a n d D r. S q u ire s , fo r th e ir g e n e ro u s a d v ic e a n d h e lp . 107° B e fo re w e b e g in th e a c tu a l w o rk I s h o u ld lik e , if y o u w ill p e r m i t m e , to m a k e s o m e r e m a r k s a b o u t th e w a y in w h ic h th e g e n e ra l in te n tio n s o f o u r C o n g re ss s h o u ld b e u n d e rs to o d . O n e o f th e m o s t s e r io u s o b s ta c le s to c o lla b o r a tio n in th e fie ld o f p sy ­ c h o t h e r a p y is t h e p e c u l i a r f a c t o f t h e r e b e i n g d i f f e r e n t s c h o o l s o f th o u g h t w h ic h a re a p p a r e n tly in c o m p a tib le w ith e a c h o th e r. N o t th a t s u c h a fa c t w o u ld b e a n y n o v e lty in th e h is to ry o f m e d i­ c in e , b u t i t is a n a n n o y i n g e n c u m b r a n c e w h ic h h a s d e la y e d t h e u n i o n a n d c o lla b o r a tio n o f th e n u m e r o u s w o r k e r s i n th e fie ld o f p s y c h o t h e r a p y . M e d i c a l p s y c h o l o g y is s t i l l a d e l i c a t e p l a n t w h i c h n e e d s c a r e f u l n u r s i n g i f i t is t o l e a d a r e a s o n a b l y i n d e p e n d e n t e x is te n c e in th e n e a r f u tu r e . B u t h o w c a n a n y o n e ta k e c a re o f its d e v e lo p m e n t w h e n n o t e v e n its o w n r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s a r e a t o n e a m o n g t h e m s e l v e s a s t o w h a t t h e t h i n g is? I t h a s r e c e n t l y I [July S Q -A u g u st s, 1938. D elivered in English; previously unpublished.]

IO 7I

becom e a serious q uestion, in m ore countries than one, w hether psychotherapy co u ld o r should be tau g h t at the universities. M any physicians have realized th a t q u ite ordinary diseases are accom panied by psychological disturbances w hich are causally related to the organic ailm ent. Psychiatrists have becom e aw are th at even psychoses o ften have a rem arkably psychological as­ pect, a n d psychotherapists have fo und th a t b o rd erlin e cases, o m inously labelled as schizophrenia, are n o t inaccessible to psy­ chological tre atm e n t. In education, considerable use has already been m ade o f th e psychological points of view elaborated by m edical psychologists. A nd even the clergy, C atholic as well as P ro testan t, are b eg in n in g to be interested in o u r w ork, because they are h u m a n beings like ourselves who are b u rd e n e d and even harassed a t tim es by the in tricate m oral problem s of the peo p le w ho co n su lt them . W e can safely speak of an enorm ous increase of p u b lic in tere st in o u r w ork w ith in the last ten years. In te re st in psychology is serious in o u r day an d is no longer a rid icu lo u s fad as it was tw enty years ago. T o d ay we o u g h t to th in k h a rd a n d m ake a serious effort to b rin g together all m en o f good w ill in o u r profession, in o rd er to m eet th e needs an d d em ands of th e tim e. In Sw itzerland we had a com m ittee for psychotherapy elected by th e Swiss Society of Psychiatry m any years ago. A nd, as o n e m ig h t expect, for as m any years n o th in g hap p en ed . R ecently, how ever, we m ade a move, b u t one of o u r faculties of m edicine said: “W h at are you going to teach? You d o n o t even agree w ith each o th er a b o u t your ow n theories." T h is rem ark hits th e nail on the head. Yet th e n ail of psy­ chotherapy has several heads an d only one of these is struck by this criticism . T h o se w ho are n o t professionally acq u ain ted w ith psychology do n o t realize th a t it includes a very large a n d equally im p o rta n t p ractical p a rt w hich has little o r n o th in g to do w ith a p a rtic u la r theory. B u t it is th e latter w hich is loudly p ro ­ claim ed before the pu b lic, an d thus the preju d ice is aroused th a t psychotherapy am o u n ts to n o th in g b u t the preaching of a p ar­ tic u la r theory. T h is is a gross m istake. As a m atter of fact each psychotherapist in his practical work follows a line th at is m ore or less com m on to all his colleagues (provided they do n o t use hypnotism ). A n d each of them , n o m atter to w hat school he b e­ longs, follows his ow n lin e because he knows from experience th a t good w ork dem ands th e w hole m an a n d is never achieved

by m ere ro u tin e o r by a th eo retic al creed. T h e very n a tu re of the cases we are tre a tin g forces us occasionally to change o u r m ethod o r o u r th eo retical ex p lan atio n . W e know th a t a neurosis is n o t a typical in fe ctio n by a specific m icrobe, b u t th e m o rb id devel­ o p m e n t o f the w hole of a personality. W e also k now th a t the o rig in ato rs of psychological theories are h u m a n beings w ith an in d iv id u a l psychic p red isp o sitio n , th e one m o re p ro n e to a cer­ ta in k in d of o p in io n o r in te rp re ta tio n th a n th e o th er. O n the o n e h a n d we have to d eal w ith very in d iv id u a l p atien ts a n d on th e o th e r h an d we m ake use of o p in io n s w hich are only very rela­ tively valid. T h e se tru th s are in co n testable. T h e y sh o u ld w arn us against an y fixed s ta n d p o in t a n d they sh o u ld tu rn o u r m inds to w h at we actually d o w ith o u r p atien ts, r a th e r th a n to a m ean­ ingless d isp u te a b o u t opin io n s. 107a T h e Swiss C o m m ittee of P sychotherapy has m ade th e at­ te m p t to fo rm u late those p o in ts a b o u t w hich all psychothera­ pists, w o rk in g alo n g th e lines of psychological analysis, could agree. T h e dem ocratic sp irit of S w itzerland has h e lp e d us to avoid all ab solutism an d we succeeded in p ro d u c in g F o u rtee n P oin ts of m u tu a l ag reem en t.2 P re sid en t W ilso n ’s n o b le a tte m p t seems to have stood g o d fath er to o u r little en terp rise. T h e re are peo p le w ho d o u b t w h e th er th e L eague of N atio n s really works. B u t o u r en terp rise in Sw itzerland has already w orked. W e .are read y now to sta rt a n In stitu te of Psychotherapy. >073 O u r fo u rtee n p oints, w hich I am presently g o in g to discuss, have b ee n rid ic u le d as a lu k ew arm com prom ise th a t skates over the m ost trem en d o u s differences o f o p in io n . T h a t is exactly w h at w e in te n d e d to do. If you w a n t to q u a rre l a b o u t opinions, you can sp en d th e rest of y o u r life d o in g so. B u t we w an ted to g e t so m eth in g do n e, a n d you c a n n o t do th a t by endless p h ilo ­ sophical discussions a b o u t th e u ltim a te m ean in g of th e psyche. Each school h ad to sacrifice some of its hobby-horses a n d to ab an ­ d o n stiff-necked resistance to o th e r p oints of view. S om ething little sh o rt of a m iracle h ap p en ed : o u r a d m itted ly lu k ew arm a n d 2 ["T h e fourteen points d e a lt w ith m edical procedure, psychogenesis, diagnosis, ex ­ plo ratio n , m aterial (including all possible form s of h u m a n expression, behaviour, controlled language, th e language of free association, of fantasy, o f dream s, of sym p­ tom s an d sym ptom atic actions), aetiology, th e unconscious, fixation, conscious re al­ ization, analysis an d in te rp re ta tio n , transference, ontogenic reduction, phylogenic redu ctio n , a n d th erap y .”—Zentralblatt, X I (1939): 1-2, p . 2.—E d i t o r s .]

ADDRESS T O T H E O X FO R D CONGRESS 65/; and race theories, 202: two cultures of, 13/, 544"; resentment i n . 4 8 5 ; s e e a l s o psychology, Jewish J e w > W a n d e r i n g , 181 J o h n ' F i r s t E P i s t l e o £ ' *44 jokes, 541 Josephus, 201 {Xi'smTv ^ J u n g ! ' c k r i Gustav: Keyserling and, 4|2. a n d Nazis, S32

595

WORKS: Aion, 4111, 1 4 m , 327n; Alchemical Studies, 235n, 35gn; "Brother Klaus," 33971; Collected Papers on Analytical Psychology, 23371, 23471, 54371; " C o n c e r n i n g Mandala Symbolism," 32671; "Concerning Rebirth," 32871; Contributions to Analytical Psychology, 29», 97«, H 3 n » 8 3 4 n :

INDEX J u n g (cont.) Development of Personality, i227i, 23671; Essays on Contentporary Events, 17771, 17971, 19471, 2 i 8 n , 22771; " F r e u d and J u n g : Contrasts," 54371; " G e n e r a l Aspects of Dream Psychology," 23571; "Instinct and the Unconscious," 3271, 28271; " M a r r i a g e as a Psychological R e l a t i o n s h i p , " 122; Psychiatric Studies, 12571; Psychological Types, 54371; Psychology and Alchemy, 35571, 36671, 38471, 38771; "Psychology and R e l i g i o n , " 2 3 m , 23271; "Psychology of the T r a n s f e r e n c e , T h e , " 402; "Psychotherapy T o d a y , " 17771; "Relations Between the Ego and the Unconscious, T h e , " 22871, 5 4 4 " ; " R e v i e w of the C o m p l e x T h e o r y , A , " 54571; Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, The, 29n, 32". 23471, 23571, 28271, 31371; "Structure of the Unconscious, T h e , " 22871; Symbols of Transformation, 47; "Synchronicity: A n Acausal Connecting Principle," 313": " T h e o r y of Psychoanalysis, T h e , " 54371; " T r a n s f o r m a t i o n Symbolism in the Mass, 3 5 5 " ; Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, 3871, 4 m , 22871, 22971, 23471; " W h a t Is Psychotherapy?", 55771; with W i l h e l m : The Secret of the

katabasis, 355 Kathakali, 517 K a u f m a n n , R., 424W Keyhoe, D o n a l d E., 312, 317, 33871, 379 n >4»3 Keyserling, C o u n t H e r m a n n , 93, 4i7> 479#> 4 8 9 0 ' 49 6 ff K h i d r , 328, 410 Kitoshi, 61 K1 ages, L u d w i g , 181, 347 Klaus, Brother, 339 K l u g e r , H . Y., 372 Knights of Columbus, 514 K n o l l , M a x , 312 k n o w l e d g e : absolute, 336; a n d belief' s65'> a n d faitha85453! o r g a n a n d o b i e c t o f - 54; tree of, ' 4 ° ; a n d understanding, of m a n , 25°' 273 K o n a r a k : Black Pagoda, 529 Krafft-Ebxng, R i c h a r d von, 103 K r a n e f e l d t , W . M „ 557 krater>355 Kretschmer, Ernst, 533, 535 Kreuger, Ivar, 142 Knshnamurti,86 KU°K?UX x t n „ ^ , x KtarL> K u n d a l i m yoga, 84 ffhauser 186

'

Jiinger, Ernst, 214 J u n g f r a u , 484 J u p i t e r , 362, 365, 367

L a m b of G o d , 360 Lambarene, 414 landings, f r o m Ufos, 317, 322 L a n g m a n n , Dr. (clergyman), 19071 language, affective results of, 509 lapis philosophorum, see stone, philosophers' Latin, 480 Latins, a n d coloured men, 508 laughter, A m e r i c a n , 46, 504, 508 law, R o m a n , 263 laymen, as therapists, 554

jr Kabras forest, 61 kairos/*a«/>6$, 191, 304 K a l i , 519; D u r g a , 466 K a n t , I m m a n u e l , 410, 462 karma, 88 fca-soul, 4s

L , ,

S^LSSJSf'

596

INDEX 2eader(s), 154, 230, 253; of mob, 220; see also mass(es) L e a g u e of Nations, 189, 49971 l e a r n i n g capacity, 287, s88 L e B o n , Gustave, 239 legends, 219; formation of, 322/ Leibniz, G . W . , 313, 335 lens-shape, of Ufos, 335/ leopard-woman, 64, 66 levitation, 352 L^vy-Bruhl, L u c i e n , 37, 51, 52, 64, 65, 452 liaisons, sexual, a m o n g students, 106/ liar, pathological, see pseudologia phantastica libertinism, 356 libido, 8 lie, a n d political action, 261, 266 Ltebeault, A.-A., 326 life, negation of, 1 8 i n life-instinct, 147 light: divine epiphany and, 327; emission by fish and insects, 336 lion, symbol of Christ a n d Satan, 449 l i v i n g standard, 492 L o c k h e e d A i r c r a f t Corporation, 418 Logos: as male principle, 123, 124; supremacy of, 286 L o s Angeles, 537 L o u i s X I V , 253 love, 97/; conjugal, 98; development of ideal, 110; a n d faith, 112; and hygiene, 102; kinds of, 97/; and marriage, 123; of neighbour, 301; a n d sexuality, 6/, 98$, 112; for things, 118 love choice, a n d parents, 38/ L o y o l a , Ignatius, 266 L u c i f e r , 389, 449 L u k e , G o s p e l of, 240, 357, 38971

M machine, m a n and the, 268 Macrobius, 4 o 4 n macrocosm a n d microcosm, 335

maenads, 185 magic: books, 371; primitives and, 51, 446; psychological effect of, 8 6o; science of the jungle, 63; in Switzerland, 371 magnetic fields, interstellar, 321 Maha-Parinibbana Sutta, 520 Mahatmas, 91 Mahayana, see Buddhism Maidenek, 196 Main, river, 181 majesty, 364 mamba, 61 man: Christ as prototype and goal of, 397; collective/mass, 229/, 258; , atomization of, 301; demasculinization of, 493; inner/higher, 447; Primordial, 327, 405, see also Anthropos mana, 63, 68, 69, 72, 303, 448; see also personality mandala(s), 221, 366; cross-shaped, 402; mathematical structure of, 409, 424; as space ship, 335; as totality symbol, 326; triadic, and Germans, 408; a n d Ufos, 387, 423/ "manning," 368, 372 Mantell, Capt., 33171 mare nostrum, 332 Maria the Copt/Jewess, 391; A x i o m of, 405 marriage: cross-cousin, 402/; medieval, 125/; and mother archetype, 35; "perfect," 120, 126; problems, 128; quaternio, 402; and the student, 100/, 103/f; trial, mf; women and, izoff Mars, 321, 323 Martians, 315 Mary, Virgin, as patron of Swiss, 484 masculine-feminine antithesis, 407 Marxism, 265, 295 Mass, the, 355 mass(es), 275/f; anonymity of, 154, 230; Churches and, 275/; industrialized, 200; leaders and, 154, 230, 253, 275; and manifestation of archetypes, 229; resistance to,

597

INDEX mass (es) (cont.) 278; "telluric," 498; see also m a n , collective/mass; psychology, mass mass meeting, and n u m i n o u s experience, 294 mass-mindedness, 379, 382 masturbation, 104; effects of, 109/; m u t u a l , 107 materialism/materialists, 70, 223, 258, 344, 4 1 1 , 512; and psyche, 4 1 1 materialization, 4 1 6 matriarchy, in America, 417 matter, 361; physicist and, 147; and psyche, 411 M a t t h e w , Gospel of, 389 M a x Miiller, Frederick, 91 Maya, 4 6 3 , 4 6 4 , 5 1 6 Mayer, R o b e r t , 15 m e a n i n g , search for, 480 mediator: loss of belief in, 414; n u m b e r as, 410 medicine, and politics, 538/ medicine-man, 59, 66, 68, 498 mediums, spiritualistic, 416 megalomania, 89, 385; Keyserling's, 480 Meier, C . A., 546

M i c h e l , Aim€, 312, 320TI, 353TI microbiology, 547 microcosm: alchemical, 326; m a n as, 278, 286; soul as, 335 M i d d l e Ages, 326, 369; adultery in, 120; and anima, 41; world-view of, 81, 328 Midwich Cuckoos, The, 4 3 1 f f migrations, E u r o p e a n , 524 milk, drying up, 370 m i l l e n n i u m , 80; first, e n d of, 247, 324 M i m i r , 192, 194 m i n d : causal concept of, 29; conscious, see consciousness; influence of country on, 5 1 1 ; m e a n i n g of, 30; see also psyche Minne, 188 8c n missionaries, Christian, 89 Mithraism, 21, 91 m o b , 275; formation of, 220; see also mass(es) modern m a n : a n d p o w e r instinct, 344; a n d unconscious, 358 M o g u l s / M o g u l Empire, 516, 5 1 9 monadology, 335 monastery, cultural, 499$

m e l o d y , infectiveness of, 509

monasticism, ideals of, 40

Menzel, D . H., 371, 413 Mephistopheles, 144, 172, 207, 215, 378 Mercurius, 332; duplex J hermaphroditus, 385, 407; metal, and spirit, 332; Philosophorum, 405; quadratus, 405; subterranean, 385; see also Hermes; spiritus Mercury, 188 Merseburg spell, 371, 372 Mesmer, Friedrich A n t o n , 15, 172 Messiah, 44, 328 metamorphosis of the g o i s , 304 metanoia, 276, 379 metaphors, 337 metaphysics, 215, 448; Christian, 391; fear of, 185; J u n g and, 328; psychologizing, 3a8n meteors/meteorites, 316, 319 M'ganga, 59

M o n d a m i n , 410 money, A m e r i c a n attitude to, 512 monogenes, 397 monotheism, 334 Mons, battle of, 314 month, Platonic, 311 mood(s): changes of, 139; in w o m a n , 119 m o o n , 321, 323, 404; further side of, 322; as symbol of divine mother, 425; visionary, 314; w a x i n g , a n d departed souls, 369 m o r a l code, 440$; and religion, 461 morality: alteration of, 116; primitives and, 53; and the unconscious, 441 Morgenthaler, W . , 557n, 558, 560 mortification, 342 Moses, 338, 339 mosque, 180

598

INDEX mother: archetype of, 34/, 36; in India, 53a; a n d son, unity of, 407 Mothers, realm of, 377 mother-ships, 402, 420 M o u n t a i n L a k e , 68 movement, in Americans, 505 multiplication 334 m u n g u j 7s Murray, J o h n : Handbook for India, 529 museums, 500 music: A m e r i c a n , 508; atonal, 210; "etheric," 4 s o f f Mussolini, A r n a l d o , 205 Mussolini. Benito, 205 mysteries: ancient, 10; Gnostic, 16 mystery religions, 16, 92 mystical instruction, 118 mystics, a n d love, 98 myth(s), 9, 26, 449; age of, and W o t a n , 187; art and, 303; a u t o genesis of, 443; and dreams, sig; integral to religion, 285; living, U f o s as, 322; natural bases of, 329 mythology: Christian, symbolical und e m a n d i n g of, 266; Egyptian, 339; modern, 369 N nadir, 407 names: and magical compulsion, 426; of tribes, 136 N a p o l e o n , 481 narcissism, 99, 160 nation(s): " a u n t o f , " 492; as tunctions of mankind, 480, 487; identification with, 482; and individual, relation, 27, 488; personified, 487 nationalism, fear of, 263 N a t i o n a l Socialism, 166, 237^, 289, 43o, 537/f, 543; W o t a n and, 184, igS nature: m a n and, 66; a n d unconscious, 23 Navahos, 507 N e g r o : A m e r i c a n , 46f, 507; and A f r i c a n , g a p between, 509; Euro-

pean assimilation to, l a i ; white complex of, 508, 509 N e p t u n e ( U f o pilot), 433 Netherlands, 481, 512, 553; Society for Psychotherapy, 551, 554 neurology, and psychotherapy, 554/ neurosis, 39, 120, 138, 159, 219; and adaptation, 162; affects whole personality, 566; alternative explanations, 160; cardiac, 159; child's, and parents' psychology, 34; concupiscence and, 160; hysterical, 203, see also hysteria; infantile fantasies and, 281; learning to bear, 169; loss of, 167; as new name for devil, 1 4 6 f , 155; positive aspects, 167, 169; and psychotherapy, 559; reason for. in the present, 171; symptoms of, and instincts, 288; uncontrolled affects and, 360 neutrality, Swiss, 485 N e w Testament, 258 n'goma, 508 Nicholas of Cusa, see Cusanus Nietzsche, F. W . , 14, 86, 98, 113, 121, 131, 181, 182/, 202, 203, 212, 214/, 347> 348, 497' 498; feminine side in, 213 nightmare(s), 34; Nietzsche's, 183 nigredo, 427,428 N i l e , 332 Ninck, Martin, 188/ normality, concept of, 238, 296 Normans, 524 Nostradamus (Michel Nostredame), 179 " n o t h i n g but," 8, 23, 144, 162, 168, 170, 171. 348 Notre D a m e (Paris), 85, 86 novels, and sex, 102/ number(s): archetypal aspect, 409]?, 424; as mediator, 410; see also dyad; hexad; ogdoad; pentad; quaternity; quincunx; tetraktys; three plus o n e motif; triad; two; four; eight; ten; twenty-four; thirty

599

n um inosum j num inosity / num inous, 34°. 34*/> 377. 38°. 385. 3a7« 393» 4»5. 458 N urem berg, 401 n u tritio n , function of, 6 nycticorax, 449 O O annes, 141 oath, m odernist, 537 obliqueness, In d ian , 524 observer, in physics, 252 obsessions/obsessional ideas, 143, 146; conscience and, 447 occultism, 3, 272, 328 occupants, of Ufos, 317 occurrences, unusual, as omens, 319 octopus, 395 O din, 187η; see also W otan Oedipus, 378; com plex/m otif, 348, 349 o g d o a d ,366, 392 O Idenberg, H erm ann, 91 O ld Masters, 500 O ld T estam ent, 190η, 392, 447, 467 O loron, 353 omens, 58#, 319 O ne, the, 334 one-sidedness, 93, 130, 253, 347, 552; of conscious m ind, 15; F reud’s, 160; o f m odern education, 153 opinion: psychotherapy and, 158; in women, 119 opium trade, 89 O ppenheim er, R o b ert J., 465 opposites: above/below , 407, 484; aristocratic / unaristocratic, 484; collision of, 428/; fire/w ater, 407;. higher w o rld /h u m an world, 408/; m asculine/fem inine, 407; psychic, and conscience, 447; reconcilia­ tion of, 373; self as com bination °f. 337«' tension of, 410, 414; u n io n of, 327, 369, 402, 417; unity /q u atern ity , 407/; see also a n tith ­ eses; coincidentia oppositorum ; com plexio oppositorum

opus divinum , 334 organizations, large, 379/ O rigen, 98 O rpheus, 425 O rtega y Gasset, Jos£, 501 O rthodox Church, Eastern, 180 Osiris, 339 Ostwald, W ilhelm , 103 "o th er” in us, 152, 169/,486 O tto, Rudolf, 458 O u pnek’hat, 85 overcrowding, in India, 524 overpopulation, 277, 323 O xford, 564 P paedagogics, 549 pain tin g : m edieval, 406; m odem , pathological elem ent in, 2 1 0 ;---- , a n d Ufos, 383// Pali C anon, 525, 526 Pallas A thene, 388 panacea, 332, 383, 385 Papuans, 64 Paracelsus, 211 Paradise, 139 parallelism , psychophysical, 270, 411 parapsychology / parapsychological phenom ena, 83, 84, 335, 411; and absolute knowledge, 336; and m a­ terialization, 416; a n d relativization of space/tim e, 270,450 parents: as archetypes, 34//; influ­ ences from , a n d conflicts, 281 Paris, 481 Parsifal, 214 parthenogenesis, 432 participation m ystique, 37f, 64, 65, 6 7 . 75. 1 9 5 . 433.45* Pathans, 519 Paul, St., 129, 276, 293, 414, 442, 447; Greek m other of, 186 passivity, w om an’s, 117 p ax Rom ana, 487 peculiarities, individual, 472/ pilerinage de I'dme, 403, 423 p en etratio n , 337, 402

p e n ta d , 408 P en teco st, 189 p ercep tio n (s): o f conscious a n d u n ­ conscious, 18; su b lim in al, g p e rils of th e soul, 139, 172, 186, 381 p erm a n en ce , civ ilization an d , 487 p ersecu tio n , id eas of, 320 p erso n a, 127 p erso n ality : dissociation of, 203, 373, see also dissociation; m an a, 6g, 70; o f p o rtio n s o f psyche, 67; split­ tin g of, 207, 282, 289 p ersu asio n , 157 perversions, sexual, 99f P fo rta, 183 p h a llu s, 337 P h ile m o n a n d Baucis, 207, 213 P h ilistin es, 182 p h ilo so p h y : in In d ia , 526; a n d m od­ e m age, 180; psychopathology an d , 547 p h o to g ra p h in g Ufos, 322 phrases, fam iliar, a n d d is ru p tio n of consciousness, 138 p h y lo g en y , 32, 33 physics, 89, 462; ato m ic/n u clea r, 298, 316, 329, 393, 452; a n d o b ­ server, 252; th eo retical, 411 p h y sio th erap y , 559 p ictu res, “m eaningless,” 383 p ietism , 257 pigeons, carrier, 336 P ilg rim , S p iritu a l, 403, PI. v n pin-sticking, 370 Pisces, 141, 3x1 “ p la n , g re a t,” 205/ p la n e ts: a n d ato m ic explosions, 321; reco n n aissan ce from , 321 P la to , 98, 198, 326, 391, 448 p la to n ic re latio n sh ip s, 109/, 123 play, a n d sp o rt, 513 p leasu re p rin cip le, 160; F re u d and,

348 p lu ra lity , of "selves,” 334 P lu to , 188 p n e u m a , 35, 72, 189, 332, 463 P o im an d res, 189 P o la n d , 239, 264η

polis, 99 politics: in d iv id u a l's p a r t in, 299; re la tio n to therapy, 178, 538# p o p u latio n , increasing, 323 polygam y, 89 Polynesia/Polynesians, 89, 527 P o rtm an n , A dolf, 336 possession, 139, 146, 211, 214, 381; collective, 248; see also E rgreifer pow er, d riv e /p rin c ip le /w ill to, 27, *35. *47' *55* 287, 349; A dler and, 161, 165, 348; C ath o lic C hurch and, 345; in stin ct, 344; in m ob leader, 220 pow ers: arb itra ry , 66, 69; telluric, 497/ “pow er-w ord,” 48 pragm atism , 499 prayer, 351, 353, 359 precognition, 336, 450 “prelogical” m ind, 51// present: consciousness of, 75/f; m ean in g of, 115 prestige psychology, 348 presuppositions, of prim itiv e, 54 “P revorst, Seeress of," 124 priest, C atholic, 118 prim itives: a n d ancestral in h e rit­ ance, 510; and au to n o m o u s psyche, 446; a n d causality, 56; co n c en tratio n am ong, 54; a n d d eath , 51; a n d dream s, 150; a n d fetish, 329; a n d m orals, 53; a n d m ystical in stru ctio n , 118; n eu ­ rotics am ong, 19; p ro jec tio n am ong, 26, 65; a n d psyche, 11 /; psychology of, 136; senses of, 53; a n d sex, 103; th o u g h t-p ro d u ctio n am ong, 527; “ to tality " in, 347; unpsychological, 63; a n d th e u n ­ usual, 137 p rim itiv ity : in d ream symbols, 219, 220; elem ents of, in In d ia , 528/; sexual, 506 P rim o rd ia l B eing, 407 principles, 458, 467 p riva tio boni, 338, 358, 465 problem (s): personal, a ttitu d e to, 78;

problem (s) (cont.) sexual, discussion of, 123; w om ­ a n ’s, 114 proficiency, 76 p ro jectio n (s): 25f, 65, 69, 318, 320, 562; o n to an im a figure, 378; a p ­ p earan ce as physical facts, 335; ascetics an d , 341; basis of, 328; carriers of, 320; ex p lan a to ry , 324; in stin c tu a l a n d sp iritu a l, 341; m a n d a la as, 327; am o n g p rim i­ tives, 64, 68; a n d ra d a r, 413; re ­ tu rn of, to o rig in , 214; U fos and, 318#, 323, 373, 417; o f u n re co g ­ n ized evil, 297; w ith d raw al of, 300; see also fe a r prom iscuity, sexual, 506 p ro p a g a n d a , p o litica l, 320 p ro p itia tio n , rites of, 19 p ro s titu tio n : a n d love, 100; a n d m arriag e, 40, 120; to lera te d , 120; in U g an d a, 89 P ro testan tism , 257, 261; in G erm any, 190; theology of, 549 Psalm s, 386 pseudologia phantastica, 203, 205 pseudo-m oderns, 76/ p s y c h a s t h e n ia , 6

psyche: analogy w ith b u ild in g , 31; b u ild in g u p of, 70; c a n n o t know itself, 410; ch ild ’s, a n d p a re n ts, 34; collective, 80, 86, 137; com plexity of, 7, 550; c u rre n t u n d e rv a lu a tio n of, 346; differences in , 137/; n o t a n ep ip h e n o m e n o n , 270; E u ro ­ p ea n , 562; fascin atio n of, 90, 92, 93; G erm an , 186; im p o rtan ce of, 291; in d iv id u a l differences, 135; in sid e a n d o u tside, 78; m a te ria l­ ized, 416; a n d m a tte r, re la tio n of, 411; n a tio n a l, 481; a n a tu ra l p h e ­ n o m en o n , 340; n o t su b ject to will, 440; objective, 147: p e c u lia r n a ­ tu re of, 270/; p o la rity of, 447; p re ­ histo ry of, F re u d an d , 349; reality of, 346; two-sided, 141; u n ity of, 146; weightless, 352 psy ch iatrist, 348

psychiatry, a n d psychotherapy, 554/ psychism , m aterialized , U fo as, 416 psychoanalysis: a n d a ttitu d e to sex, 102; b e g in n in g of, 4; F re u d ia n , 83, 85, 163, 348; as tech n iq u e, 163f; a n d U fos, 333; a n d yoga, 90; see also analysis; F re u d psychogenic disturbances, 5/ psychokinesis, 411 psychologem , 378 f Psychological C lu b o f Z urich, 469 psychologism , 144, 549 psychology: ab stract a p p ro a c h of, 272; academ ic, 272; A m erican, 490/7, 502/f; analytical, sources of, 16; C hinese, 90; co m p arativ e, 340; com plex, 469; a n d com plexes, 225; crim in al, 233; c u rre n t in ­ tere st in , 83, 324; "d irty -jo k e,” 168; "discovery” of, 79; a n d evil, 356; F re u d ia n , 90, see also psy­ choanalysis; Jew ish a n d G erm anic, 533, 540#; laym an's a ttitu d e to, 13417; mass, 222, 225, 228/, 239, 276; -----, G e rm an p ro n e n ess to, 219, 222; m edical, p sy chotherapy as, 547; n a tio n a l, 233; p ra ctice a n d th eo ry in, 565; o f prim itives, 136; re c e n t o rig in of, 137; as a science, 540; a n d th erap y , 157f; W e ste rn m a n ’s in te re st in , 281; w o m an ’s, 116, 123/ psychoneuroses, 555 psychopathology, 124; a n d ex p e ri­ m e n ta l psychology, 4; F rench, 16; a n d psychotherapy, 547/ psychopathy, 238; G erm an , 232, 238; n a tio n a l, 233 psychotherapy: co n fu sio n in , 533; G erm anic, 538; as m ed ical psy* chology, 547; n ee d fo r w id er field, 549; as profession, 558; a n d psy­ chiatry, se p a ra tio n of, 558; as re ­ la tio n sh ip , 164; schools of, 158, 564; scope of, 17; task of, 349; as a tech n iq u e , 157#, 168; a n d u n i­ versities, 565; see also neurology; psychiatry; th era p y

p u b e rty ; a n d m etabolism , 105; psy­ chological, 104, 106 p u b lic ity , A m erican, 505 f P u e b lo In d ia n s, 61, 65, 89, s i t p uer aetem us, 181 p u e rp e ra l fever, 355 P u e rto R ico , 318 puff-adder, 61 P unch , 186 P yram ids, 79

Q q u a te rn io , m arriag e, 402 q u a te rn ity , 366, 391/, 396, 398, 402, 404; sq u are as, 404; a n d u n ity , 407 quicksilver, 332, 333; see also M ercu riu s q u ietism , E astern , 91 q u in c u n x , 391, 395, 397, 398, 407 q u in tessen ce /q u in ta essentia, 331, 39 *> 39 * R ra b b i, 20 ra d a r, 312, 318, 325, 332, 413, 415 R a m a n u ja , 464 ra tio n a lism : a n d city dw elling, 341; scientific, 253; a n d sexuality, 344 ra tio n alists, 344; a n d neurosis, 167 rav en , 449 ray (fish), 376 re ality : lack of, 208; sp iritu al, lack o f ex p erien ce of, 342 R eason, G oddess of, 85, 280 reco n naissance, aerial, 316 red , m ascu lin e colour, 417 red eem er, p erso n ified as anim al, 360 reeducation de la volonte, 157 «R eform ation, 153, 213 refrigerium , 394 regression, 160, 237 R eich, G erm an : fo u n d in g of, 212; “ th o u san d -y ear," 190, 215 R eich stag fire, 199 re in c a rn a tio n , 88; a n d anim a, 43 R e in w a ld, 239

re la tio n sh ip : d o cto r-p atien t, 164, 274; h u m an , a n d im perfection, 301 relativ izatio n , o f space a n d tim e, 270, 346, 450 relativism , 90 relativity, 89 relig io n (s): decline of, a n d psyche, 79, 83; difficulty o f u n d ersta n d ­ ing, 280; E lgonyi an d , 71 f; goals of, 260; a n d hero-m otif, 48; in ­ stinctive n a tu re of, 259; inter-W ar developm ent, 180; a n d mass­ m indedness, 256((; m o d ern con­ te m p t for, 93; “n ig h t," 33; a psy­ chic fact, 549; as psychotherapeu­ tic, 172; a n d psychotherapy, 555; State, 266; a n d unconscious, 19 religious activity, 155 religious experience, psychological stru c tu re of, 345 rep resen tatio n s, collective, 51/, 60, 7 1» 443. 549 repression(s), 5 f, 160, 320; n eu ro tic consequences of, 340; sexual, a n d “s p irit,” 343; of sexuality, 345; superego an d , 438/ resentm ent(s): o f ch th o n ic m an, 486; early, 164; Swiss, 485 resistance(s), 162, 470 respectability, 129 re strain t, lack of, A m erican, 506 restrictions, sexual, 343 resurrection, C h rist’s, sym bolism of, 266 R evelation, Book of, 3 3 7 , 3^6 revelations, divine, visions as, 342 rev o lu tio n : C om m unist, see C om ­ m unism ; F rench, see F rench R evo­ lu tio n R h in e, J. B., 349- 393« 394« 4 i » R h in e la n d , 181 rhythm , infectiveness of, 509 R ib o t1 T h eo d o re, 4 rickshaw boys, 465 rid d le, of S phinx, 378 rites: effects of, 260; a n d u n co n ­ scious, 346

INDEX rites d'entrie et de sortie, soo, 259 romance, a n d marriage, 10a R o m a n empire, 487 R o m a n s , Epistle to the, 265, 359, 442 R o m e : absence of technical progress, 79; Asianization of, 91; germ of regeneration in, 143; malaise in post-classical, 140; a n d mystery cults, 514; imported religions, 16; slavery in, 121 restlessness, 49 Rorschach test, 395, 397, 398, 406 ros Gedeonis, 332 Rosicrucians, 403 rotundum(-a), 326, 378, 404, 423/, 425, 429 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 108 R u m a n i a , 481 rumour(s): mass, 324; requisites for, 315; symbolic, 328; U f o as symbolical, 387; visionary, 314, 318/ R u p e r t s b e r g codex, 403 R u p p e l t , E d w a r d J., 312, 316, 413 Russia, 11471, 196, 261/1, 481; and A m e r i c a , 491; education i n prerevolutionary, 238; l a b o u r camps, 323; policy of, 319; red as colour of, 4 1 7 ; religion in, 180, 190; Tsarist, 115

Schiller, Friedrich, 18, 499, 540 schizoidstat.es, 139 schizophrenia, 565 Schmitz, Oscar, 90, 487 Schopenhauer, A r t h u r , 16, 86, 147, 313 Schreber, D a n i e l Paul, 365 Schuler, A l f r e d , 181 & n Schwabing, 206 Schweitzer, A l b e r t , 414, 483 science, 81, 82, 279; Chinese, 90; a n d the exceptional, 371/; v. faith, 84; a n d the individual, 252 scintillae, 404 "sea, o u r , " 332 sea-anemone, 395 stance, 314 secrets, 468 sectarianism, 257 security, 91 f; magic and, 260; material, 81 Seifert, Friedrich, 456 & n self: appearance of, 380; archetype of, 406/; , U f o as, 327; archetype of order, 424; better, 447; b r e a k i n g u p of u n i t y of, 334; as c o m b i n a t i o n of opposites, 337: and ego, 149, 463; as m e d i a t i n g symbol, 410; organizer of personality, 366; as psychic wholeness, 410; symbols of, 326, 424/jF; see also eS° S self-assertion, 160; see also p o w e r Sabbath, defiler of, 357 drive Sahara, 317 self-control, 41 saints, 360; a n d dreams, 146 self-criticism, 300, 356, 447, 482/ salamander, 394 self-knowledge, 151 /, 248ff 3 269, SalpStri£re, 4 293/f, 356; in therapist, 163 salvation, archetype of, 328 self-preservation, 200/, 287 Sanchi, 520 "selves," multiplication of, 334 sanctions, Christianity and, 215 sensation, f u n c t i o n of: 330, 347, 408; sanguis, 332 a n d frigidity, 106; and intuition, Saqqara, 79 486; see also functions, f o u r Satan, symbols of, 449 seraphim, four, 391 saving and spending, 488 serpent: in Paradise, 140; symbol of saviour, 356; b i r t h and e p i p h a n y of, Christ a n d Satan, 449 397 senator mundi, 332 scapegoat, 297 servus rubeus, 417 604

Set, 339 se x (u a lity ), 287; aggressive, in w o m ­ e n , 119; in A m e ric a , 492, 506; C a th o lic C h u rc h a n d , 345; a n d fo rm s, 336/f; F r e u d ia n view , 7, 348/; a n d love, see love; in m e n a n d w o m e n , 104; a n d m e ta p h o r, 337; p r im itiv e s a n d , 103; a n d psy ch e, 135, 147; a n d re lig io n , 343, 345; re p re sse d , 155, 344, 346; stu d y of, 90; a n d sy m b o lism , 3 4 3 /; U fos a n d , 333; a n d u n c o n sc io u s, 6/, 23; i n w o m e n , a n d m a rria g e , 123/ sh a d o w , 215, 345, 366, 377 « ; collec­ tiv e, o f h u m a n ity , 2g6/; c o n fro n ­ ta tio n w ith , 463, 468; discovery of, 216; H i t l e r as re p re s e n tin g , 223; ig n o ra n c e of, in h y sterics, 207; in ­ e sc a p a b le , 170; m a n ’s, a n d w o m an , 113, 127; n ecessary to self, 337; p r o je c tio n of, 203; re c o g n itio n of, 300/; u n c o n sc io u sn e ss of, 280/; W e s te rn m a n a n d , 290 S h a h J e h a n , 519 S h a k e sp e a re , 156 s h a m a n /s h a m a n is m , 15, 16, 4 8 ,5 1 4 S h a n k a ra , 464 sh ap e (s): se x u a l sig n ific a n c e of, 336; o f U fos, 317, 325, 3 3 5 / sh a rk , 376 sh e e p sacrifices, 181 sh en-so til, 29 S hiraz, 519 S h iv a, 5 19 sh o fa r, 20 S ie g frie d , 190η Sievers, E d g a r, 322, 352η, 399 “ sig n s in th e h e a v e n s," 320, 323, 398 Sikhs, 519 S im o n M ag u s, 40 sin , 3 5 6 /; o r ig in a l, 296 size, o f U f os, 317 skyscrap ers, 514 sla n g , A m e ric a n , 5 0 4 / slaves, 121 S le ip n ir, 184 slip s o f th e to n g u e , 398« slo g an s, 248, 276

sm ilin g , in fectiv e, 509 S m ith , H d l£ n e , 125 sn ak es, dream -sym bol, 19; see also s e rp e n t so cial dem ocracy, 77 so cial service, 492 socialism , 537 societies, secret, A m eric an , 514 Society fo r P sychical R esearch , B r it­ ish, 234 society, a b stra c t n a tu r e of, 2 5 4 / S ocrates, 76, 446, 453, 481 s o la r p lex u s, 517 sol in v ic tu s, 425 solstice, 181 s o lu tio n /s o lv e n t, 331/ S o m m er, R o b e rt, 5 3 3 « , 562 Son o f G od, C h rist a n d S a ta n as, 449 Son o f M an , 271, 397 soul(s): c o n c e p t of, 42/; -----, C h i­ nese, 29; “in c h a in s,” 334; in d i­ v id u a l, a n d w o rld soul, 335; loss °f> l 39> 3®U " n a tio n s o f th e ," 86; o f th e n a tio n , 481; p e rils of, see p e rils; as sp h ere , 326, 335; U fo s as, 326; u n iv e rsa lity of, 67; w a n ­ d e rin g , 64; see also w orld-soul soul-force, 15 soul-sparks, 404 sp a c e -sh ip s/tra v e l, 315/, 321, 323, 324, 329, 369, 421; see also U fos S p a in , 115, 481, 5 is ; C ivil W a r in , 190 sp ear(s), 337, 402 sp e c ia liz a tio n , g ro w th of, 79 sp eech : E n g lish , 522/; I n d ia n , 522, 523; p e c u lia ritie s of, 508 sp eed , o f U fos, 316 spells, 371 S p e n g le r, O sw ald, 487 sp h e re : d re a m figure, 362; so u l as, 326 S p h in x , 377; r id d le of, 378 sp id e r, flying, 351#, 359 S p in o za, B e n e d ic t/B a ru c h , 20, 98 sp irit(s): a lch e m ic al w a te r as, 332; a n c e stra l, 69; a n d bo d y , re la tio n of, 94; b re a th as, 72; collectiv e.

spirit(s) (cont.) 501; d a n g e r of, 486; evil, 447, see also d em o n , devil; m a n o f the, 484; M ercu riu s as, 33s, see also M ercu riu s; p rim itiv e m a n a n d , 11, 52; sym bolized by circle, 404; a n d tellu ric pow ers, 498/ sp iritu alism , 15, 48, 67 f, 83, 84, 87, 514

sp iritu a lity , secret, 494 spiritus loci, 511

spiritus M ercurii/m ercurialis, 33», 405

sp ittle, 72 sp lit, psychic, 139; split-m indedness, 327; see also consciousness; disso­ ciatio n ; p erso n ality sp rin g -p o in t, 311 sp o rt, 93; in A m erica, 48, 513 sp u tn ik s, 323 square, 40 4 / Squires, H . C., 564 “ stab in th e b ack ,” 208 S talin , J . V., 263 stam m erin g , 508 f sta r o f D av id , 407 star, as airc ra ft em blem , 417 S tate: A m erican view of, 49a; deifi­ ca tio n of, 261; d ep e n d e n c e o n , 201, 221; goals of, 260; a n d in d i­ v id u al, 225/, 252#, 256, 258; as p erso n ality , 255, 286; a n d relig io n , 259 f; W elfare, 201 statistical m e th o d / statistics, 249 f,

394

S teiner, R u d o lf, 84 step m o th er, 37 stew ard, u n ju s t, 357 stig m atizatio n , 422, 424 S tockholm , 551, 554 sto n e: fo u n d in N ile, 332; P hilos­ o p h e rs’, 391, 424; see also lapis storm -god, 184 Stransky, E rw in , 554 strato sp h ere, 311 Strauss, D r., 564 S tru d el, 370 stu p a, 520

su b jectiv e factor, energy charge of,

397

su b ject status, Swiss a n d , 483 su b lim a tio n , 8, 160, 171 su b stitu te fo rm a tio n , 161 Suez, 290 suffering, c h a in of, 360 suggestion(s), 70, 157; m ass, 234, 254, 276; th erap y , 547 suicide, 41 S um m um B onum , 445, 449 su n , 424; allegory o f C hrist, 425; dream -figure, 361 f; E lgonyi an d , 72; fa llin g fro m sky, 387; P u e b lo view of, 68 su n ch ild re n , 432/ su n w heel, 326 superbia, 287 superego, 348, 438, 439/, 446; arch aic vestiges in , 440 S u p erm an , 203, 208, 212, 213, 214 Sw eden, 315, 316 S w edenborg, E m an u e l, 86 Swiss, ch a ra c te r of, 484# Swiss C o m m ittee o f P sychotherapy, 566 Swiss Society fo r P rac tic al Psychol­ ogy» 55 1 Swiss Society o f Psychiatry, 565 S w itzerland, 103, 186, 200, 224, 512; as E u ro p e ’s ce n tre o f gravity, 486; fu n c tio n in E u ro p e , 487; a n d G er­ m a n g u ilt, 196; K eyserling a n d , 481 ff; m agic in, 370, 371 sw ord, 337 symbiosis, 336; o f conscious a n d u n ­ conscious, 378 sym bol(s), 11, 279; circu lar, 327; col­ lective, in dream s, 152; creatio n of, 18; in d iv id u a tio n , 326; re li­ gious, arch ety p al ch a rac te r of, 285; of self a n d o f d iv in ity , 339; theriom o rp h ic, 360; U fos as, 325, 387; u n io n of ra tio n a l a n d irra tio n a l in , 18; u n itin g , 389, 407, 414; see also to ta lity sym bol-creating fu n c tio n , 18, 19, 23 sym bolism : C h ristia n , a rch ety p al

INDEX nature, 343; ecclesiastical, neurotic, a m b i g u i t y of, 169; ental, psychology and, 548; u a l interpretation, 343 symbology, comparative, 340 synchronicity, 313, 349, 361, 4x7, 450 synchronism, 450

370; orisex-

411,

X table, four-footed, 397 table-turning, 15 Tabula smaragdina, 484 T a j Mahal, 519, 520 talking, A m e r i c a n s and, 504 T a n g u y , Yves, 394/?, 403, Pi. rv T a o , 407, 410, 463 T a o s , 514 T a u r u s , 3 1 1 , 484 tear-drop, U f o as, 33 m technique, psychotherapy and, 157/f technology, 328 telepathy, 336, 450 telluric man/masses, 497/ temperature inversion layers, 316, 325 temptation of Jesus, 389 ten, the number, 366 T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s , 439 tension, emotional, 3 1 9 T e r e s a of A v i l a , 467 tetraktys, 424 tetrapeza,

397

thriller, vogue for, 199 thunderbolt, 450 T i b e t , 91, 525 tics, 508 T i f e r e t h , 410 time machine, 3 9 m totalitarianism, 221, 536/ totality: Christian, 392; consciousness and, 335; G o d as symbol of, 327; symbols of, 404, 407; see also mandala; wholeness town, in America, 506/ tradition, as criterion, 343 transference, 160, 273 transformation: B u d d h i s m and, 526; of souls into water, 333 trauma, infantile sexual, 171 tremendum, 458, 463 triad, 408 tricephalus, 392 T r i n i t y , Holy, 391, 403; Christ and, 397; and the devil, 392; iconography of, 392; vision of, 339 troposphere, 311 trusts, 379 tubes, seen in sky, 402 T u r k e y , 481 twenty-four, the number, 404 twilight state, hysterical, 208 two, as vertical axis, 407 tyranny, 277

U

T e u tsche n thai, 184 theocracy, 231 Ufos, 31 i f f , 415; appearance and distheories, statistical, 249 appearance, 332/; as archetypal T h e o s o p h y , 16, 83, 84, 87, 88, 90, 91 images, 327; in dreams, 330^; in therapist, see doctor history, 40 iff; materiality of, 416/; t h i n k i n g : see functions, four; intelnot photogenic, 322; occupants of, lect 317. 3 21 /." plurality of, 334/; as thirty, the n u m b e r , 404 portents of death, 369; psychic naT h o m a s A q u i n a s , 403, 427 ture of, 415; and radar, 332, 4»5! thought: Indians and, 527, 529; sexual aspects, 333- 35of; shapes, primitives and, 12 325. 336; see also acceleration; threads, r a i n o f , 352n, 353 drop; flight; size; speed three p l u s o n e motif, 391, 392, 397. U g a n d a , 89 402, 408 "ugliest M a n , " 131 607

u n clean n ess, m agical, 197 unconscious, 147, 290, 334 /; a u ­ to n o m y of, 335, 441; co llectiv e/ su p ra p erso n al, io ff, 138, 219, 377; , u n ity of, 450; co m p en satio n , th eo ry of, 15, 17, 23, 219, 388; co n ­ ten ts of, Sf, 18; d e n ia l of, 3; dependence on consciousness, d o u b ts reg ard in g , 440; discovery of, 211/, 358; dream s as sym ptom s of, 151, 218; early use of term , 3; fe a r of, 119; F re u d ia n concept, 5, 30; G erm an ic, tensions in, 166, 219; g u id in g fu n c tio n , 23; la n ­ gu ag e of, 17; n a tu re of, 30; o b ­ jectiv ity of, 291; p erso n al, 9; p ro ­ je c tio n of, 25; psychic forces an d , 185; psychoanalysis an d , 4; a n d re lig io u s ex p erien ce, 293; in re ­ ligious persons, 292; u n itin g sym­ b o l in , 414; see also consciousness; dissociation; co m pensatory unconsciousness: Jew ish, a n d A ryan, 165; o f mass m an , 75; as sin, 357; w o m an ’s, 117, 119 u n d e rs ta n d in g , 499; see also know l­ edge u n em p lo y ed , in G erm any, 180, 205 u n ig e n itu s, 397 U n ite d K ingdom , 316 U n ite d States, see A m erica u n ity : focus of, 143; of in d iv id u a l, 349; o f m a n k in d , 295; a n d quate rn ity , 407; sym bol of, 414; see also to ta lity ; w holeness univ ersities, 565 u n its m u n d u s, 409, 411, 452 U p a n ish a d s, 85, 191 U .S.S.R., see R u ssia u teru s, 333, 336 V V a le n tin o , R u d o lp h , 513 V alery, P au l, 499η, 500 V a lh alla, 190η V alkyries, 186, 188

v an G ogh, V in ce n t, 392η van d e r H o o p , D r., 551, 554 van H o u te n , D., 403η v en ereal diseases, 89, 102 V enus, 321; in c a n ta tio n to , 371 V e rd a n t O n e , 328 V ien n a, 235, 481,554 vim a n a , 525 v in u m ardens, 332, 392 violence, in dream -sym bols, 219, 220 V irgil, 121 V irgo, 484 V ishnu, 520 vision, a n d h a llu c in a tio n , 314η visions: collective, 314, 319, 320, 324; of Saints, 342; as sym bol, 350 voice(s): 353; E nglish, 522/; in n e r, 447 v o latilizatio n , 332 v o litio n , 340 V oluspo, 192f, 194 v o x D ei, 444f , 446ff, 453 W W ag alaw eia songs, 186 W ag n er, R ic h a rd , 184, 186η, 212, 214 w ar: o u tlaw in g , 77; p re p a ra tio n for, 82; see also W o rld W a r I W aren s, M ad am e de, 108 w asp, 336 w ater: p e r m a n e n t/o f th e P hiloso­ p h e r s /p h ilo s o p h ic a l, 331/, 385; in s ta r o f D avid, 407; source of living, 392; sym bol o f passivity, 394; th a t is fire, 385, 394; as u n ­ conscious, 425; see also aqua per~ m anens W atso n , J o h n B., 491, 492 w eightlessness, 315, 316, 321, 329, 35 2 > 4*5 W e im a r R e p u b lic , 180 W eizsacker, V ik to r von, 166η w elfare, social, 154, 492 W e lfare S tate, 201 W elles, O rson, 315η

INDEX

Wells, H. G., ~15, ~91n Weltanschauung, of psychotherapy, 54 8

West and East, differences, 114 wheels, in Ezekiel's vision, 403 white, feminine colour, .p 7 white man, Pueblo view of, 89, 211 White House, 417 wholeness, ~39; archetype of, 328, 335; death and, 367; four as symbol of, 391; instinct for, 344/; psychic, cosmic affinities, 335; - , images of, 335; and sexuality, !H4; symbol of, 339, 414; and transcendence, 410; see also individua· tion; totality; unity Wilhelm 11,239 Wilhelm, Richard, go, gl, 235,464 Wilkins, Harold T., 3~pn, 352n, 35Sn will to power, see power wind: god of, 187/; Hermes and, 188/; symbol in Nietzsche, 182 wine, fiery, 332 wish-fantasies, 1641, 16g, 248 wish-fulfilment, 160, 162, 277 wishes, repressed/suppressed, 5, 34 1 witchcraft, II, 52, 6g; dreams and, 150 witch.doctor, 370 witch-motif, 33 wizards, 37 1 , 37Jt Wolff, Toni, 4 6 g-7 0 woman (women): conservatism of, 511; Dionysus and, 18S; dress, 520/; Indian, 520/.. su: male attachment to older, 108; man's image of, 39; mental masculinization of, 119; and psychOlogy, 125; relation to man's world, 116; and social independence, 1 17; unmartied, surplus of, 120; see also anima "wooden-headedness," Swiss, 540 word(s): magical, 147; personification of, 286/; see also Logos world: end of, 328, 367; higher and human, 4081; lower and upper,

3gll; vertical and horizontal, 3911 world-soul, 3ll6; and individual SOUls, 335 World War I, 77, 80, 130, 179, 208, 220, 221, 233, 314; woman and,

116

World War II, 5122 World War III, 3641 Wotan, 194, 214, 371; archetype of, 187!, 18g; cavalcade of, 371; as Ergreifcr, 185; oak(s) of, 85, 184; resurrection of, 180 wrath-fire, ,389 writing, American, 504 Wunsch, 188 & n Wyndham, John, 43 1ff

Y

Yahweh, 192, 448; fire of, 389; wildness of, 392 yang, see yin yantras, 424 yin and yang, 35, 142, 4°7, 484, 486, 49 8 yoga, 518; and psychoanalysis, go; see also Bhakti-Yoga; Kundalini yoga yogi,5 1 7 youth,375 Youth Movement, German, 180 yucca moth, 282

z Zagreus, see Dionysus Zarathustra, see Nietzsche Zechariah, Book of, 4 0 4 Zeitgeist, 281, 3°3, 5 01 zenith, 4 0 7 zeppelin, 3 2 5 n Zeus, 18g, 388,45 0 Zosimos, 333, 386 , 4 0 5 Zschokke, Heinrich, 45 1 Zurich, 55 1 , 554

609

T H E C O L L E C T E D W O R K S OF

C. G. JUNG E D IT O R S : S IR H E R B E R T R EA D , M IC H A E L F O R D H A M , A N D G ER ­ H A R D A D L E R ; E X E C U T IV E E D ITO R , W IL L IA M M cG U IR E. T R A N S ­ L A T E D B Y R .F.C . H U L L , E X C E P T W H E R E N O T E D .

I n t h e f o l l o w i n g l i s t , d ates o f original publication a re given in p a ­ re n th e se s (o f o rig in al com p o sitio n , in brackets). M ultiple d ates indicate revisions.

1. P S Y C H IA T R IC S T U D IE S (1957; 2 n d e d n ., 1970) O n th e Psychology a n d P athology o f So-C alled O ccult P h en o m en a (1902) O n H ysterical M isrea d in g (1904) C ry p to m n e sia (1905) O n M anic M ood D iso rd e r (1903) A C ase o f H y sterical S tu p o r in a P riso n er in D eten tio n (1902) O n S im u lated In san ity (1903) A M edical O p in io n o n a C ase o f S im ulated Insanity (1904) A T h ir d a n d F inal O p in io n o n T w o C o n trad icto ry Psychiatric D iag­ n o ses (1906) O n th e Psychological D iagnosis o f Facts (1905) 2. E X P E R IM E N T A L R E SE A R C H E S (i 973) Translated by Leopold Stein in collaboration with Diana Riviere S T U D IE S IN W O R D A S S O C IA T IO N (1904—7, I Q I O ) T h e A ssociations o f N o rm al Subjects (by J u n g a n d F. Riklin) A n A nalysis o f th e A ssociations o f an E pileptic T h e R eac tio n -T im e R atio in th e A ssociation E x p e rim e n t (continued)

2. (co n tin u e d ) E x p e r im e n ta l O b s e r v a tio n s o n t h e F a c u lty o f M e m o ry P s y c h o a n a ly sis a n d A s s o c ia tio n E x p e r im e n ts T h e P sy c h o lo g ic a l D ia g n o s is o f E v id e n c e A s s o c ia tio n , D r e a m , a n d H y s te ric a l S y m p to m T h e P s y c h o p a th o lo g ic a l S ig n ific a n c e o f th e A s s o c ia tio n E x p e r im e n t D is tu r b a n c e s in R e p r o d u c tio n in th e A s so c ia tio n E x p e r im e n t T h e A ss o c ia tio n M e th o d T h e F a m ily C o n s te lla tio n P S Y C H O P H Y S I C A L R E S E A R C H E S ( I 9 0 7 —8 )

O n th e P s y c h o p h y s ic a l R e la tio n s o f th e A sso c ia tio n E x p e r im e n t P sy c h o p h y s ic a l In v e s tig a tio n s w ith th e G a lv a n o m e te r a n d P n e u m o ­ g r a p h in N o r m a l a n d I n s a n e I n d iv id u a ls (by F. P e te r s o n a n d J u n g ) F u r t h e r I n v e s tig a tio n s o n th e G a lv a n ic P h e n o m e n o n a n d R e s p ir a tio n in N o r m a l a n d I n s a n e I n d iv id u a ls (by C . R ic k s h e r a n d J u n g ) A p p e n d ix : S ta tistic a l D e ta ils o f E n lis tm e n t (1 9 0 6 ); N e w A sp e c ts o f C r im in a l P sy c h o lo g y (1 9 0 8 ); T h e P sy c h o lo g ic a l M e th o d s o f I n v e s ­ tig a tio n U s e d in th e P s y c h ia tric C lin ic o f th e U n iv e rs ity o f Z u ric h (1 9 1 0 ); O n th e D o c tr in e o f C o m p le x e s ([1 9 1 1 ] 1 9 1 3 ); O n th e P sy­ c h o lo g ic a l D ia g n o s is o f E v id e n c e (1 9 3 7 ) 3. T H E P S Y C H O G E N E S IS O F M E N T A L D IS E A S E ( i9 6 0 ) T h e P sy c h o lo g y o f D e m e n tia P ra e c o x (1 9 0 7 ) T h e C o n t e n t o f th e P sy c h o se s (1 9 0 8 /1 9 1 4 ) O n P sy c h o lo g ic a l U n d e r s t a n d i n g (1 9 1 4 ) A C ritic is m o f B le u le r ’s T h e o r y o f S c h iz o p h r e n ic N e g a tiv is m (1 9 1 1 ) O n t h e Im p io rta n c e o f t h e U n c o n s c io u s in P s y c h o p a th o lo g y (1 9 1 4 ) O n th e P r o b le m o f P s y c h o g e n e s is in M e n ta l D ise a se (1 9 1 9 ) M e n ta l D ise a se a n d t h e P sy c h e (1 9 2 8 ) O n t h e P s y c h o g e n e s is o f S c h iz o p h r e n ia ( 1939) R e c e n t T h o u g h t s o n S c h iz o p h r e n ia (1 9 5 7 ) S c h iz o p h r e n ia (1 9 5 8 ) 4 . F R E U D A N D P S Y C H O A N A L Y S IS (1 9 6 7 ) F r e u d ’s T h e o r y o f H y s te ria : A R e p ly to A s c h a f f e n b u r g (1 9 0 6 ) T h e F r e u d i a n T h e o r y o f H y s te r ia (1 9 0 8 ) T h e A n a ly sis o f D r e a m s (1 9 0 9 ) A C o n tr ib u tio n to t h e P sy c h o lo g y o f R u m o u r (1 9 1 0 —11) O n t h e S ig n ific a n c e o f N u m b e r D r e a m s ( i g i o - 11) M o r to n P r in c e , “T h e M e c h a n is m a n d I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f D r e a m s ” : A C ritic a l R ev iew (1 9 1 1 ) O n t h e C ritic is m o f P sy c h o a n a ly s is (1 9 1 0 ) C o n c e r n in g P s y c h o a n a ly sis (1 9 1 2 )

T h e T h e o r y o f Psychoanalysis (1913) G e n e ra l A sp ects o f Psychoanalysis (1913) P sychoanalysis a n d N eu ro sis (1916) S o m e C ru cial P o in ts in Psychoanalysis: A C o rre sp o n d e n c e betw een D r. J u n g a n d D r. Loy (1914) P re fa c e s to “C ollected P ap ers o n A nalytical Psychology” (1916, 1917) T h e S ig n ifican ce o f th e F ath er in th e D estiny o f th e In d iv id u al (1909/

»949) In tro d u c tio n to K ra n e fe ld t’s “S ecret Ways o f th e M in d ” (1930) F re u d a n d J u n g : C o n tra sts (1929) 5. S Y M B O L S O F T R A N S F O R M A T IO N ([1911-12/1952] 1956; 2nd e d n ., 1967) pa rt

t

In tro d u c tio n T w o K in d s o f T h in k in g T h e M iller F antasies: A n am nesis T h e H y m n o f C re a tio n T h e S o n g o f th e M oth P A R T II

In tro d u c tio n T h e C o n c e p t o f L ibido T h e T r a n s fo rm a d o n o f L ibido T h e O rig in o f th e H e ro Sym bols o f th e M o th e r a n d o f R eb irth T h e B a ttle fo r D eliverance fro m th e M o th er T h e D u a l M o th e r T h e S acrifice E p ilo g u e A p p e n d ix : T h e M iller Fantasies 6. P S Y C H O L O G IC A L T Y P E S

([1921]

197Ο

A revision by R .F .C . H u ll o f the translation by H . G. Baynes

I n tro d u c tio n T h e P ro b le m o f T y p es in th e H istory o f Classical a n d M edieval Thought S ch ille r’s Id e a s o n th e T y p e P roblem T h e A p o llin ia n a n d th e D ionysian T h e T y p e P ro b lem in H u m a n C h a ra c te r T h e T y p e P ro b lem in P oetry T h e T y p e P ro b lem in P sychopathology (continued)

6. (continued) T h e T y p e P ro b lem in A esth etics T h e T y p e P ro b lem in M o d e rn P h ilo so p h y

T h e T y p e Problem in B iography G e n e ra l D e sc rip tio n o f th e T y p e s E iefinitions E p ilo g u e F o u r P a p e rs o n P sychological T y p o lo g y (1913, 1925, 1931, 1936) 7. T W O ESSAYS O N A N A L Y T IC A L P S Y C H O L O G Y (1 9 5 3 ; 2 n d e d n ., 1966) O n th e P sychology o f th e U n c o n sc io u s (1917 /1 9 2 6 /1 9 4 3 ) T h e R elatio n s b e tw e e n th e E g o a n d th e U n co n scio u s (1928) A p p e n d ix : N ew P a th s in P sychology (1912); T h e S tr u c tu re o f th e U n ­ co n scio u s (1 916) (new v ersio n s, w ith v a ria n ts, 1966) 8. T H E S T R U C T U R E A N D D Y N A M IC S O F T H E P S Y C H E ( i9 6 0 ; 2 n d e d n ., ig 6 g ) O n Psychic E n e rg y (1928)

T h e T ra n sc e n d e n t F unction ([1916] 1957) A Review o f the C om plex T h e o ry (1934) T h e S ig nificance o f C o n stitu tio n a n d H e re d ity in P sychology (1929) P sychological F acto rs D e te rm in in g H u m a n B e h a v io r (1937) In s tin c t a n d th e U n co n sc io u s (1919) T h e S tr u c tu re o f th e P syche (1927/1931)

O n th e N a tu re o f the Psyche (1947/1954) G e n e ra l A sp ects o f D re a m P sychology (1916/1948) O n th e N a tu r e o f D re a m s (1945/1948) T h e P sychological F o u n d a tio n s o f B e lie f in S p irits (192 0 /1 9 4 8 ) S p irit a n d L ife (1926) B asic P o stu la te s o f A nalytical P sychology (1931) A n aly tical P sychology a n d W eltanschauung (1928/1931) T h e R eal a n d th e S u rre a l (1933) T h e S tages o f L ife (1930—1931)

T h e Soul a n d D eath (1934) S y n ch ro n icity : A n A causal C o n n e c tin g P rin cip le (1952) A p p e n d ix : O n S y n ch ro n icity (1951) 9.

T H E A R C H E T Y P E S A N D T H E C O L L E C T IV E U N C O N S C IO U S (1959; 2 n d ed ., 1968)

pa r t

I.

A rchetypes o f th e Collective U nconscious (1934/1954) T h e C o n c e p t o f th e C ollective U n c o n sc io u s (1936) C o n c e rn in g th e A rc h e ty p e s, w ith S pecial R e fe re n c e to th e A n im a C o n c e p t (1 936/1954)

Psychological Aspects o f th e M other A rchetype (1938/1954) C o n cern in g R ebirth (1940/1950) T h e Psychology o f th e Child A rchetype (1940) T h e Psychological Aspiects o f the Kore (1941) T h e Phenom enology o f th e Spirit in Fairytales (1945/1948) O n th e Psychology o f the Trickster-F igure (1954) Conscious, U nconscious, a n d Individuation (1939) A Study in th e Process o f Individuation (1934/1950) C o n cern in g M andala Symbolism (1950) A p p en d ix : M andalas (1955)

9·

p a r t h

.

A IO N ([1951] 1959; 2nd ed., 1968)

R E S E A R C H E S I N T O T H E P H E N O M E N O L O G Y O F T H E SE L F

T h e Ego T h e Shadow T h e Syzygy: A nim a an d A nim us T h e Self C hrist, a Sym bol o f th e Self T h e Sign o f th e Fishes T h e P rophecies o f N ostradam us T h e H istorical Significance o f the Fish T h e A m bivalence o f th e Fish Symbol T h e Fish in Alchem y T h e Alchem ical In te rp re ta tio n o f the Fish B ackground to the Psychology o f C hristian Alchemical Symbolism Gnostic Symbols o f the Self T h e S tru ctu re a n d Dynamics o f the Self Conclusion 10. C IV IL IZ A T IO N IN T R A N S IT IO N (1964; 2nd edn., 1970) T h e Role o f the Unconscious (1918) M ind a n d E a rth (1927/1931) A rchaic M an (1931) T h e Spiritual Problem o f M odern Man (1928/1931) T h e Love Problem o f a S tudent (1928) W om an in E u ro p e (1927) T h e M eaning o f Psychology for M odern M an ( 1 9 3 3 / 1 9 3 4 ) T h e State o f Psychotherapy T oday (1934)

Preface a n d E pilogue to “Essays on C ontem porary Events” (1946) W otan (1936) A fter th e C atastro p h e (1945) T h e F ight with th e Shadow (1946) (continued)

I ο . (continued ) T h e U n d is c o v e r e d S e lf ( P r e s e n t a n d F u tu r e ) (1 9 5 7 ) F ly in g S a u c e rs : A M o d e r n M y th (1 9 5 8 ) A P sy c h o lo g ic a l V iew o f C o n s c ie n c e (1 9 5 8 ) G o o d a n d E vil in A n a ly tic a l P sy c h o lo g y (1 9 5 9 ) I n t r o d u c t i o n to W o lf f ’s “S tu d ie s in J u n g i a n P sy c h o lo g y ” (1 9 5 9 ) T h e Sw iss L in e in t h e E u r o p e a n S p e c tr u m (1 9 2 8 ) R e v ie w s o f K e y s e rlin g ’s “A m e r ic a S e t F r e e ” (1 9 3 0 ) a n d “ L a R e v o lu ­ tio n M o n d ia le ” (1 9 3 4 ) T h e C o m p lic a tio n s o f A m e r ic a n P sy c h o lo g y (1 9 3 0 ) T h e D r e a m lik e W o rld o f I n d ia (1 9 3 9 ) W h a t I n d ia C a n T e a c h U s (1 9 3 9 ) A p p e n d ix : D o c u m e n ts (1 9 3 3 —1938) 11. P S Y C H O L O G Y A N D R E L I G I O N : W E S T A N D E A S T (1 9 5 8 ; 2 n d e d n ., 1969) W E S T E R N R E L IG IO N

P sy c h o lo g y a n d R e lig io n ( T h e T e r r y L e c tu re s ) (1 9 3 8 /1 9 4 0 ) A P sy c h o lo g ic a l A p p r o a c h to t h e D o g m a o f th e T r in ity (1 9 4 2 /1 9 4 8 ) T r a n s f o r m a t i o n S y m b o lis m in th e M ass (1 9 4 2 /1 9 5 4 ) F o r e w o r d s to W h ite ’s “G o d a n d t h e U n c o n s c io u s ” a n d W e rb lo w sk y ’s “ L u c if e r a n d P r o m e th e u s ” (1 9 5 2 ) B r o t h e r K la u s (1 9 3 3 ) P s y c h o th e r a p is ts o r th e C le rg y (1 9 3 2 ) P sy c h o a n a ly s is a n d th e C u r e o f S o u ls (1 9 2 8 ) A n s w e r to J o b (1 9 5 2 ) E A S T E R N R E L IG IO N

P s y c h o lo g ic a l C o m m e n ta r ie s o n “T h e T i b e ta n B o o k o f th e G r e a t L ib ­ e r a t i o n ” (1 9 3 9 /1 9 5 4 ) a n d “T h e T i b e t a n B o o k o f th e D e a d ” (1 9 3 5 / 1 9 5 3

)

Y o g a a n d t h e W e st (1 9 3 6 ) F o r e w o r d to S u z u k i’s “ I n t r o d u c t i o n to Z e n B u d d h is m ” (1 9 3 9 ) T h e P sy c h o lo g y o f E a s te r n M e d ita tio n (1 9 4 3 ) T h e H o ly M e n o f I n d ia : I n t r o d u c ti o n to Z im m e r ’s “ D e r W e g z u m S e lb s t” (1 9 4 4 ) F o r e w o r d to t h e “ I C h in g ” (1 9 5 0 ) 12. P S Y C H O L O G Y A N D A L C H E M Y ([1 9 4 4 ] 1 9 5 3 ; 2 n d e d n ., 1968) P r e f a to r y n o te to t h e E n g lis h E d itio n ([1 9 5 1 ?] a d d e d 1967) I n t r o d u c t i o n to th e R e lig io u s a n d P sy c h o lo g ic a l P ro b le m s o f A lc h e m y I n d iv id u a l D r e a m S y m b o lis m in R e la tio n to A lc h e m y (1 9 3 6 ) R e lig io u s I d e a s in A lc h e m y (1 9 3 7 ) E p ilo g u e

ig . A L C H E M IC A L S T U D IE S (1968) C o m m e n ta ry o n “T h e S ecret o f th e G o ld en F low er" (1929) T h e V isions o f Zosim os (1938/1954) P ara celsu s as a S p iritu a l P h e n o m e n o n (194a) T h e S p irit M e rc u riu s (1943/1948) T h e P h ilo so p h ical T r e e (1945/1954) 14. M Y S T E R IU M C O N IU N C T IO N IS ([1955—56] 1963; 2 n d e d n ., 1970) A N IN Q U IR Y IN T O T H E S E P A R A T IO N A N D S Y N T H E S IS O F P S Y C H IC O P P O S IT E S IN A L C H E M Y

T h e C o m p o n e n ts o f th e C o n iu n ctio T h e P a ra d o x a T h e P erso n ifica tio n o f th e O pposites R ex a n d R eg in a A d a m a n d Eve T h e C o n ju n c tio n 15. T H E S P IR IT IN M A N , A R T , A N D L IT E R A T U R E (1966) P ara celsu s (1929) P ara celsu s th e Physician (1941) S ig m u n d F re u d in H is H istorical S etting (1932) I n M e m o ry o f S ig m u n d F re u d (1939) R ic h a rd W ilh elm : I n M em o riam (1930) O n th e R elatio n o f A nalytical Psychology to P oetry (1922) Psychology a n d L ite ra tu re (1930/1950) “ U lysses”: A M o n o lo g u e (1932) Picasso (1932) 16. T H E P R A C T IC E O F P S Y C H O T H E R A P Y ( 1 9 5 4 ; 2 n d e d n ., 1966) G EN ER A L PRO B LEM S O F PSYCHOTHERAPY

P rin cip les o f P ractical P sy ch o th erap y (1935) W h a t Is P sy ch o th era p y ? (1935) S o m e A sp ects o f M o d e rn P sy ch o th erap y (1930) T h e A im s o f P sy ch o th era p y ( 1931) P ro b le m s o f M o d e rn P sy ch o th era p y (1929) P sy c h o th e ra p y a n d a P hilo so p h y o f L ife (1943) M ed icin e a n d P sy ch o th era p y ( 1945) P sy c h o th e ra p y T o d a y (1945) F u n d a m e n ta l Q u e stio n s o f P sy ch o th erap y (1951) S P E C IF I C P R O B L E M S O F P S Y C H O T H E R A P Y

T h e T h e r a p e u tic V alue o f A b reactio n (1921/1928) T h e P ra c tic a l U se o f D re a m -A n a ly s is (1 9 34) (1continued)

16. (continued,) T h e P sychology o f th e T ra n s fe re n c e (ig 4 6 ) A p p e n d ix : T h e R ealities o f P ractical P sy c h o th e ra p y ([1937] a d d e d 1966) 17. T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F P E R S O N A L IT Y (1954) Psychic C onflicts in a C h ild (1910/1946) In tro d u c tio n to W ickes’s “A nalyses d e r K in d e rse e le ” (192 7 /1 9 3 1 ) C h ild D e v e lo p m e n t a n d E d u c a tio n (1928) A nalytical P sychology a n d E d u c a tio n : T h r e e L e c tu re s (1926/1946) T h e G ifted C h ild (1943) T h e S ig nificance o f th e U n co n scio u s in In d iv id u a l E d u c a tio n (1928) T h e D e v e lo p m e n t o f P erso n a lity (1934) M a rria g e as a P sychological R ela tio n sh ip (1925) 18. T H E S Y M B O L IC L IF E (1954) Translated by R .F.C . H u ll and others M iscellan eo u s w ritin g s 19. C O M P L E T E B IB L IO G R A P H Y (1 9 7 6 ; 2 n d e d n ., 1992)

O F C. G. J U N G ’S W R IT IN G S

20. G E N E R A L IN D E X T O T H E C O L L E C T E D W O R K S (1979) T H E Z O F IN G IA L E C T U R E S (1983) S u p p le m e n ta ry V olum e A to T h e C o llected W orks. E d ite d by W illiam M cG u ire, tra n s la te d by J a n van H e u rc k , in tro d u c tio n by M arie -L o u ise vo n F ra n z P S Y C H O L O G Y O F T H E U N C O N S C IO U S ([1912] 1992) A S T U D Y O F T H E T R A N S F O R M A T IO N S A N D S Y M B O L IS M S O F T H E L IB ID O . A C O N T R IB U T IO N T O T H E H IS T O R Y O F T H E E V O L U T IO N O F T H O U G H T

S u p p le m e n ta ry V o lu m e B to th e C o lle cted W orks. T ra n s la te d by B ea­ tric e M. H in k le , in tro d u c tio n by W illiam M cG uire Related publications: T H E B A S IC W R IT IN G S O F C. G . J U N G S elected a n d in tro d u c e d by V iolet S. d e Laszlo C. G. J U N G : L E T T E R S S elected a n d e d ite d b y G e rh a rd A d le r, in c o lla b o ra tio n w ith A n iela J a f fc . T ra n s la tio n s fro m th e G e rm a n by R .F.C . H ull. v o l . 1: 1906—1950 v o l . 2: 1951—1961

PSY C H E A N D SYM BOL S elected and introduced by V iolet S. de L aszlo TH E FR E U D -JU N G LETTERS E dited by W illiam M cG uire, translated by R alph M anheim and R.F.C. H ull C. G. JU N G SPEA K IN G : Interview s and Encounters E dited by W illiam M cG uire and R.F.C. Hull C. G. JU N G rW ord and Image E dited by A niela Jaffe T H E E SS E N T IA L JU N G S elected and introduced by Anthony Storr TH E G N O S T IC JU N G Selected and introduced by R obert A. Segal Notes to C. G. Jung's Seminars: D R E A M ANALY SIS ([1928-30] 1984) E dited by W illiam M cG uire N IE T Z S C H E ’S ZARATH U STRA ([1934-39] 1988) E dited b y Jam es L. Jarrett (2 v o l s .) AN ALY TICA L PSY C H O LO G Y ([1925] 1989) E dited by W illiam M cG uire TH E PSY C H O L O G Y OF KUNDALINI YOGA ([1932] 1996) E dited by Sonu Sham dasani IN TER PRETA TIO N O F VISION S ( [ 1 9 3 0 - 3 4 ] 1 9 9 7 ) E dited by C laire D ouglas