The principle of psychic relatedness; sometimes assumed by
Jung to underlie the psychology of woman; recognised by himself as

an intUitive formulation impossible to define accurately or prove
scientifically. On this basis, the corresponding principle operative in
man’s psychology is LOGOS. But lung, on many occasions, refers to
Eros and Logos as capable of co-existing within a single individual
of whatever sex.
The ambiguity of Eros, in contrast with the directedness of Logos,
makes the concept difficult to grasp. As psychological principles,
interpretations of both Eros and Logos have been subject to wide
variation. The fallacious equation of Eros with ‘feeling’ has plagued
ANALYTICAL PSYCHOLOGY throughout the years (see TYPOLOGY). It
cannot be evaluated in quantitative terms; neither is it a, neat label
for one end of a spectrum of OPPOSITES, since it can be manifested
in either positive or negative ways. Guggenbiihl-Craig (1980) speaks
of it as an attribute which makes both GODS and humans loving,
creative and involved. One has to recognise it as an UNCONSCIOUS
power whose strength increases in proportion to the degree that it
. . remams unconscIOus.
lung’s supposition was that a woman’s need for psychic relatedness
characterised and outweighed her need for a purely sexual relationship
itself; although he warned that this was not to be applied
in an absolute sense and he was careful to give continuing analytic
attention to how and where the principle applied. When he wrote
about this, as whenever he addressed himself to controversial and
public issues, it is difficult to ascertain to what degree he spoke as a
psychologist or as lung the person. He concluded, however, that
Eros is not to be considered as synonymous with sex, but neither can
it be divorced from sex and it ‘participates’ in or as an aspect of sex
along with all other coupling or group activities of a psychic nature:
human, aesthetic and spiritual.
At length, Freud came to hold the view that there were two basic
instincts: the LIFE INSTINCT, which he identified as Eros, and the
DEATH INSTINCT. He attributed to the former the establishment and
preservation of fundamental relationships and to the latter the undoing
and destruction of those connections. lung gave considerable
attention to the refutation of such an opposition. ‘Logically, the
opposite of love is hate’, he wrote, ‘and of Eros, Phobos (fear); but
psychologically it is the will to power’ (CW 7, para. 78).
This background, which figured in lung’s interpretations of the
work of both Freud and Adler, is useful for an understanding of his
own use of Eros as a principle for he continued to assert that unconscious
Eros inevitably finds expression in a power drive. With the
supposition that the animus-possessed woman denies or is out of
touch with Eros, one can then see her actions are not ‘logical’ so
much as power-driven (see ANIMA AND ANIMUS; POSSESSION). Where

Logos is seen as ‘eternal reason’, the substitution of personal reason
can be recognised as power.
There have been few clinical observations of the Eros principle in
women and the corresponding principle of Logos in men and, therefore,
there has been scant investigation or extension of the theory.
The social breakthrough of women of today with corresponding
changes in sexual behaviour, gender roles and definition have caused
women analysts to re-investigate primary sources of feminine imagery
in an attempt to find reflection or verification of how a modern
woman breaks away from or manifests her Eros tendency in new
and creative ways. Perhaps not surprisingly, attention now begins to
focus more explicitly on father-daughter relationships and lung’s five
stages of Eros expression; biological, sexual, aesthetic, spiritual and
as a form of wisdom (sapientia).
See GENDER; REFLECTION; SYZYGY.