Complex

C. G. Jung: “Complexes are psychic fragments which have split off owing to traumatic influences or certain incompatible tendencies. As the association experiments prove, complexes interfere with the intentions of the will and disturb the conscious performance: they produce disturbances of memory and blockages in the flow of association; they appear and disappear according to their own laws; they can temporarily obsess consciousness, or influence speech and action in an unconscious way. In a word, complexes behave like independent beings, a fact especially evident in abnormal states of mind. In the voices heard by the insane they even take on a personal ego-character like that of the spirits who manifest themselves through automatic writing and similar techniques.” (The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 121.)

Samuels, Shorter & Plaut

The notion of a complex rests on a refutation of monolithic
ideas of ‘personality’. We have many selves, as we know from
experience (see SELF). Though it is a considerable step from this to
regarding a complex as an autonomous entity within the psyche,

lung asserted that ‘complexes behave like independent beings’ (CW
8, para. 253). He also argued that ‘there is no difference in principle
between a fragmentary personality and a complex … complexes are
splinter psyches’ (CW 8, para. 202).
A complex is a collection of images and ideas, clustered round a
core derived from one or more archetypes, and characterised by a
common emotional tone. When they come into play (become ‘constellated’),
complexes contribute to behaviour and are marked by
AFFECT whether a person is conscious of them or not. They are
particularly useful in the analysis of neurotic symptoms.
The idea was so important to lung that, at one point, he considered
labelling his ideas ‘Complex Psychology’ (see ANALYTICAL
PSYCHOLOGY). lung referred to the complex as the ‘via regia to the
unconscious’ and as ‘the architect of dreams’. This would suggest
that DREAMS and other symbolic manifestations are closely related to
complexes.
The concept enabled lung to link the personal and archetypal
components of an individual’s various experiences. In addition, without
such a concept, it would be difficult to express just how experience
is built up; psychological life would be a series of unconnected
incidents. Furthermore, according to lung, complexes also affect
memory. The ‘father complex’ not only holds within it an archetypal
image of father but also an aggregate of all interactions with father
over time (see IMAGO). Hence the father complex colours recall of
early experiences of the actual father.
Inasmuch as it has an archetypal aspect, the EGO also sits at the
heart of an ego-complex, a personalised history of the individual’s
development of consciousness and self-awareness. The ego-complex
is in a relationship with the other complexes which often involves it
in conflict. It is then that there is a risk of this or any complex
splitting off so that the personality is dominated by it. A complex
may overwhelm the ego (as in PSYCHOSIS) or the ego may identify
with the complex (see INFLATION; POSSESSION).
It is also important to remember that complexes are quite natural
phenomena which develop along positive as well as negative lines.
They are necessary ingredients of psychic life. Provided the ego can
establish a viable relationship with a complex, a richer and more
variegated personality emerges. For instance, patterns of personal
relationship may alter as perceptions of others undergo shifts.
lung developed his ideas via the use of the WORD ASSOCIATION
TEST between 1904 and 1911 (see ASSOCIATION). The use of a psychogalvonometer
in the test suggests that complexes are rooted in the
body and express themselves somatically (see BODY; PSYCHE).
Though the discovery of complexes was of considerable value to Freud as an empirical proof of his concept of the UNCONSCIOUS, few
psychoanalysts now use the term. However, much psychoanalytic
theory makes use of the concept of complex, particularly the structural
theory – ego, super-ego and id are examples of complexes.
Other systems of therapy such as Transactional Analysis and Gestalt
Therapy also sub-divide the patient’s psychology and/or encourage
him to dialogue with relatively autonomous parts of himself.
Some psychoanalytic commentators have suggested that Jung’s
stress upon the autonomy of the complex provides evidence for serious
psychiatric disorder in him (Atwood and Stolorow, 1979).
Others confirm Jung’s approach by stating that ‘a person is a collective
noun’ (Goldberg, 1980).
In analysis, use may be made of PERSONIFICATIONS arising from
complexes; the patient may ‘name’ the various parts of himself. Current
interest in the theory of complexes arises from its usefulness in
describing how the emotional events of earlier life become fixed and
operative in the adult psyche. Finally, the idea of ‘splinter psyches’
is relevant to current re-working of the concept of the SELF.

An emotionally charged group of ideas or images. (See also Word Association Experiment.)

[A complex] is the image of a certain psychic situation which is strongly accentuated emotionally and is, moreover, incompatible with the habitual attitude of consciousness.[“A Review of the Complex Theory,” CW 8, par. 201.]The via regia to the unconscious . . . is not the dream, as [Freud] thought, but the complex, which is the architect of dreams and of symptoms. Nor is this via so very “royal,” either, since the way pointed out by the complex is more like a rough and uncommonly devious footpath.[ Ibid., par. 210.]

Formally, complexes are “feeling-toned ideas” that over the years accumulate around certain archetypes, for instance “mother” and “father.” When complexes are constellated, they are invariably accompanied by affect. They are always relatively autonomous.

Complexes interfere with the intentions of the will and disturb the conscious performance; they produce disturbances of memory and blockages in the flow of associations; they appear and disappear according to their own laws; they can temporarily obsess consciousness, or influence speech and action in an unconscious way. In a word, complexes behave like independent beings.[Psychological Factors in Human Behaviour,” ibid., par. 253.]Complexes are in fact “splinter psyches.” The aetiology of their origin is frequently a so-called trauma, an emotional shock or some such thing, that splits off a bit of the psyche. Certainly one of the commonest causes is a moral conflict, which ultimately derives from the apparent impossibility of affirming the whole of one’s nature.[“A Review of the Complex Theory,” ibid., par. 204.]
Everyone knows nowadays that people “have complexes.” What is not so well known, though far more important theoretically, is that complexes can have us.[Ibid., par. 200.]

Jung stressed that complexes in themselves are not negative; only their effects often are. In the same way that atoms and molecules are the invisible components of physical objects, complexes are the building blocks of the psyche and the source of all human emotions.

Complexes are focal or nodal points of psychic life which we would not wish to do without; indeed, they should not be missing, for otherwise psychic activity would come to a fatal standstill.[“A Psychological Theory of Types,” CW 6, par. 925.]Complexes obviously represent a kind of inferiority in the broadest sense . . . [but] to have complexes does not necessarily indicate inferiority. It only means that something discordant, unassimilated, and antagonistic exists, perhaps as an obstacle, but also as an incentive to greater effort, and so, perhaps, to new possibilities of achievement.[Ibid., par. 925.]
Some degree of one-sidedness is unavoidable, and, in the same measure, complexes are unavoidable too.[“Psychological Factors in Human Behaviour,” CW 8, par. 255.]

The negative effect of a complex is commonly experienced as a distortion in one or other of the psychological functions (feeling, thinking, intuition and sensation). In place of sound judgment and an appropriate feeling response, for instance, one reacts according to what the complex dictates. As long as one is unconscious of the complexes, one is liable to be driven by them.

The possession of complexes does not in itself signify neurosis . . . and the fact that they are painful is no proof of pathological disturbance. Suffering is not an illness; it is the normal counterpole to happiness. A complex becomes pathological only when we think we have not got it.[Psychotherapy and a Philosophy of Life,” CW 16, par. 179.]

Identification with a complex, particularly the anima/animus and the shadow, is a frequent source of neurosis. The aim of analysis in such cases is not to get rid of the complexes-as if that were possible-but to minimize their negative effects by understanding the part they play in behavior patterns and emotional reactions.

A complex can be really overcome only if it is lived out to the full. In other words, if we are to develop further we have to draw to us and drink down to the very dregs what, because of our complexes, we have held at a distance.[“Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype,” CW 9i, par. 184.]

Complex

Definition

Samuels, Shorter & Plaut

Sharp

Jung References

Further Reading