A person’s becoming himself, whole, indivisible and
distinct from other people or collective psychology (though also in
relation to these).
This is the key concept in Jung’s contribution to the theories of
personality development. As such, it is inextricably interwoven with
others, particularly SELF, EGO and ARCHETYPE as well as with the
synthesis of CONSCIOUSNESS and UNCONSCIOUS elements. A simplified
way of expressing the relationship of the most important concepts
involved would be: ego is to INTEGRATION (socially seen as ADAPTATION)
what the self is for individuation (self-experience and -realisation).
While consciousness is increased by the analysis of defences
(e.g. PROJECTION of the SHADOW), the process of individuation is a
CIRCUMAMBULATION of the self as the centre of the personality which
thereby becomes unified. In other words, the person becomes conscious
in what respects he or she is both a unique human being and,
at the same time, no more than a common man or woman.
Because of this inherent paradox, definitions abound, both
throughout Jung’s work as well as that of the ‘post-Jungians’
(Samuels, 1985a). The term ‘individuation’ was taken up by Jung
via the philosopher Schopenhauer but dates back to Gerard Dorn, a
sixteenth-century alchemist. Both speak of the principium individuationis.
Jung applied the principle to psychology. In Psychological
Types, published in 1921 but in the writing since 1913, we find the
first published definition (CW 6, paras 757-762). The attributes emphasised
are: (1) the goal of the process is the development of the

personality; (2) it presupposes and includes COLLECTIVE relationships,
i.e. it does not occur in a state of isolation; (3) individuation involves
a degree of opposition to social norms which have no absolute validity:
‘The more a man’s life is shaped by the collective norm, the
greater is his individual immorality’ (ibid). See MORALITY.
The unifying aspect of individuation is emphasised by its etymology.
‘I use the term “individuation” to denote the process by which
a person becomes “in-dividual”, that is a separate indivisible unity
or “whole’” (CW 9i, para. 490). The phenomena described by Jung
in a variety of contexts are always close to his own personal experience,
his work with patients and his researches, especially into
ALCHEMY and the minds of the alchemists. The definitions or descriptions
of individuation therefore vary in emphasis according to
whatever source Jung was closest to at the time.
A much later book (CW 8, para. 432) refers to the difficulty which
apparently persisted in distinguishing between integration and individuation:
‘again and again I note that the individuation process is
confused with the coming of the ego into consciousness and that the
ego is in consequence identified with the self, which naturally produces
a hopeless muddle. Individuation is then nothing but egocentredness
and auto-eroticism …. Individuation does not shut out
from the world, but gathers the world to oneself.’ Clearly it is as
important to describe what the manifestations of individuation are
as it is to say what they are not (the references to autoeroticism, i.e.
NARCISSISM). Again, ‘Individualism means deliberately stressing and
giving prominence to some supposed peculiarity, rather than to collective
considerations and obligations. But individuation means precisely
the better and more complete fulfillment of collective qualities’
(CW 7, para. 267, emphases added). Or: ‘The aim of individuation is
nothing less than to divest the self of the false wrappings of the
PERSONA on the one hand, and the suggestive power of primordial
images on the other’ (CW 7, para. 269). See ARCHETYPE.
We know that Jung started to paint MANDALAS about 1916 during
a stormy period of his life, not long after the break with Freud. A
whole chapter in CW 9i is called ‘A Study in the Process of Individuation’
and is based on a case study in which the patient’s PAINTINGS
played a prominent role. It is not surprising that, what with
Jung’s introversion and the early emphasis on intrapsychic material,
the impression may have come about that experiencing the inner
psychic world was taking precedence over interpersonal relationships
during the process. Jung further illustrates Christ’s individuation in
‘Transformation symbolism in the mass’ (CW 11) and this, as well as
statements to the effect that individuation was not for everybody, may
have led to the notion that one was dealing with an elitist concept.

Jung may unwittingly have added to this misunderstanding by
stating that the process is a relatively rare occurrence. Although the
process may be more easily demonstrated by choosing dramatic
examples, it frequently occurs in unobtrusive circumstances. The
transformation brought about may result both from a natural event
(e.g. birth or death) or at times from a technical process. The dialectical
procedure of ANALYSIS offers in our day and age a prominent
example of the latter kind whereby the analyst becomes no longer
the agent but a fellow participant in the process. In that case, the
appropriate handling of the transference can be of crucial importance
(see ANALYST AND PATIENT).
One danger of an intense involvement with the inner world and
its fascinating images is that it may lead to a narcissistic preoccupation.
Another danger would be to consider all manifestations, including
antisocial activities and even psychotic breakdowns as justifiable
results of an individuation process. Inasmuch as the transference in
analysis plays a decisive part, it has to be added that individuation
is, in the language of alchemy, a work against nature (opus contra
naturam). That is to say, the INCEST or kinship libido must not be
yielded to. On the other hand, it is not to be despised because it is
an essential driving force.
As regards methodology, individuation cannot be induced by the
analyst nor, of course, demanded. Analysis merely creates a facilitating
environment for the process: individuation is not the outcome of
a correct technique. It means, howeve,r, that the analyst must have
more than an inkling about individuation (and/or the lack of it) from
his personal experience in order to have an open mind towards the
possible meaning to the patient of his unconscious productions ranging
from physical symptoms to DREAMS, VISIONS or paintings (see
ACTIVE IMAGINATION). One can certainly speak of a psychopathology
of individuation which Jung clearly does (e.g. see CW 9i, para. 290).
The common dangers during individuation are INFLATION (hypomania)
on the one hand, and DEPRESSION on the other. Schizophrenic
breakdowns are also not unknown.
Jung refers to psychotic ideas which, unlike neurotic contents,
cannot be integrated (CW 9i, para.495). They remain inaccessible
and may swamp the ego; their nature is baffling. It is conceivable
that the centre of the personality (the self) is expressed by ideas and
imagery which, in this sense, are ‘psychotic’. Individuation is regarded
as an inescapable issue and the analyst can do little more
than stand by with all the patience and sympathy he can muster. The
outcome in every case is uncertain. Individuation is no more than a
potential goal, the idealisation of which is easier than its realisation.
Mandalas and dreams point to the symbolism of the self wherever

a centre and a circle (usually squared) appear. And symbols of the
self, many of which are recorded and illustrated in Jung’s work,
occur wherever the process of individuation ‘becomes the object of
conscious scrutiny, or where, as in PSYCHOSIS, the collective unconscious
peoples the conscious mind with archetypal figures’ (CW 16,
para. 474). Symbols of the self are sometimes identical with the deity
(both Eastern and Western) and there are religious overtones to the
individuation process just as there are ‘religious’ overtones to some
psychotic contents, though the distinction may be subtle. At one
point, Jung answered a question put to him by replying: ‘Individuation
is the life in God, as mandala psychology clearly shows’ (CW
18, para. 1624, emphasis added).
Analysis and marriage are specific examples of settings of an interpersonal
nature which lend themselves to the work of individuation.
Both require devotion and are arduous journeys. Some analysts
would regard the psychological type of each partner as of crucial
importance (see TYPOLOGY). No doubt there are other interpersonal
relationships which, combined with a more or less conscious observation
of intraphysic events, could facilitate individuation. The most
important theoretical development since Jung wrote that individuation
belonged to the second half of life has been the extension of the
term towards the beginning of life (Fordham, 1969).
An unanswered question is whether integration must of necessity
precede individuation. Obviously, the chances are better for the ego
that is strong (integrated) enough to withstand individuation when
this erupts suddenly, rather than entering quietly into the personality.
Great artists whose self-realisation can hardly be doubted (e.g. Mozart,
van Gogh, Gauguin) sometimes seem to have retained infantile
character formation and/or psychotic traits. Were they individuated?
In terms of perfection of their talents which had become amalgamated
with their personalities the answer is, yes; in terms of personal
completeness and relationships, probably not.
Finally, there is a question relating to individuation which concerns
every thorough analysis, and society as a whole: will it make any
difference to the rest of mankind if an infinitesimally small number
undertake this arduous journey? Jung answers positively that the
analyst is not only working for the patient but also for the good of
his own soul and adds that ‘small and invisible as the contribution
may be it is yet a magnum opus…. The ultimate questions of
PSYCHOTHERAPY are not a private matter – they represent a supreme
responsibility’ (CW 16, para. 449).