JUNGIAN.DIRECTORY
lung’s theoretical break with Freud was partly over the
issue of what is to be meant by ‘symbol’; the concept, its intent or
purpose and content.
lung explains the conceptual difference as follows:
Those conscious contents which give us a clue to the unconscious
background are incorrectly called symbols by Freud. They are not
true symbols, however, since according to his theory they have
merely the role of signs or symptoms of the subliminal processes.
The true symbol differs essentially from this, and should be understood
as an intuitive idea that cannot yet be formulated in any
other or better way (CW 15, para. 105).
Earlier he had written as a definition of the symbol: ‘A symbol
always presupposes that the chosen expression is the best possible
description or formulation of a relatively unknown fact, which is
nonetheless known to exist or is postulated as existing’ (CW 6, para.
814).
At another point, but without specific reference to Freud, he expresses
appreciation for the subtlety and challenge of the symbol
which to him is so much more than an expression of repressed
sexuality or any other definitive content. Speaking of works of art
that are openly symbolic, he says:
Their pregnant language cries out to us that they mean more than
they say. We can put our finger on the symbol at once, even
though we may not be able to unriddle its meaning to our entire
satisfaction. A symbol remains a perpetual challenge to our
thoughts and feelings. That probably explains why a symbolic
work is so stimulating, why it grips us so intensely, but also why
it seldom affords us a purely aesthetic enjoyment (CW 15, para.
119).
Conceptual struggles on the subject of symbolisation did not end
with lung’s break with Freud; within ANALYTICAL PSYCHOLOGY the
debate continues. The discipline as a whole demonstrates a wide
range of theoretical understanding and practice in regard to symbolic
conceptualisation, purpose and content. However, even when someone
is most literal in interpreting a prevailing image or prone to see
the symbolism as manifestly sexual, even then it is possible to discover
breadth and diversity of implication consistent with Jung’s
definition provided the symbol is not confused with its content and,
thereby, assumed to have an intellectual, expository and allegorical
function, rather than to play a psychological mediatory and transitional
role.
As far as the ultimate intent of the symbol is concerned, Jung saw
it as having goals which, though functioning in a definite manner,
are hard to verbalise. Symbols express themselves in analogies. The
symbolic process is an experience in images and of images. Its development
is consistent with the law of ENANTIODROMIA (i.e. in
accord with the principle that a given position eventually moves in
the direction of its opposite, see OPPOSITES) and gives evidence of
COMPENSATION at work (i.e. that the attitude of CONSCIOUSNESS is
being balanced by movement from within the UNCONSCIOUS). ‘From
the activity of the unconscious there now emerges a new content,
con stella ted by thesis and anti-thesis in equal measure and standing
in a compensatory relation to both. It thus forms the middle ground
on which the opposites can be united’ (CW 6, para. 825). The symbolic
process begins with a person’s feeling stuck, ‘hung-up’, forcibly
obstructed in pursuit of his aims and it ends in illumination, ‘seeing
through’, and being able to go ahead on a changed course.
What unites the opposites partakes of both sides and can easily be
judged from one side or the other. But, if we take up either position,
we simply reaffirm the opposition. The symbol itself helps here, for
though it is not logical, it encapsulates the psychological situation.
Its nature is paradoxical and it represents the third factor or position
that does not exist in logic but provides a perspective from which a
synthesis of the opposing elements can be made. When confronted
with this perspective, the EGO is freed to exercise REFLECTION and
choice.
The symbol, therefore, is neither an alternative point of view nor
a compensation per se. It attracts our attention to another position
which, if appropriately understood, adds to the existing personality
as well as resolving the conflict (see TRANSCENDENT FUNCTION). It
follows that though there undoubtedly are symbols of totality, they
are of a different order. It is possible that all symbols become symbols
of totality after a fashion (see SELF).
Symbols are captivating pictorial statements (see NUMINOSUM;
VISIONS). They are indistinct, metaphoric and enigmatic portrayals of
psychic reality. The content, i.e. the meaning of symbols, is far from
obvious; instead, it is expressed in unique and individual terms while
at the same time partaking of a universal imagery. Worked upon
(that is, reflected upon and related to), they can be recognised as
aspects of those IMAGES that control, order and give MEANING to our
lives. Their source, therefore, can be traced to the archetypes themselves
which by way of symbols find more full expression (see
ARCHETYPE).
The symbol is an unconscious invention in answer to a conscious
problematic. Hence, analytical psychologists often speak of ‘unifying
symbols’ or those which draw together disparate psychic elements,
‘living symbols’ or those which are interwoven with one’s conscious
situation, and ‘symbols of totality’ which pertain and adhere to realisation
of the self (see MANDALA). Symbols are not allegorical for they
would then be about something already familiar but they are expressive
of something intensely alive, one might say ‘stirring’, in the SOUL.
Although it is commonly assumed that the symbolic contents
which appear in an individual analysis are simiiar to those of other
analyses, that is not the case. Regular and recurring psychic patterns
can be represented by manifold and diverse images and symbols.
Apart from this clinical application, symbols can be amply interpreted
from a historical, cultural or generalised psychological context.
See ALCHEMY; AMPLIFICATION; FAIRY TALE; INTERPRETATION; MYTH.
The best possible expression for something unknown. (See also constructive and final.)
Every psychological expression is a symbol if we assume that it states or signifies something more and other than itself which eludes our present knowledge.[Definitions,” CW 6, par. 817.]
Jung distinguished between a symbol and a sign. Insignia on uniforms, for instance, are not symbols but signs that identify the wearer. In dealing with unconscious material (dreams, fantasies, etc.), the images can be interpreted semiotically, as symptomatic signs pointing to known or knowable facts, or symbolically, as expressing something essentially unknown.
The interpretation of the cross as a symbol of divine love is semiotic, because “divine love” describes the fact to be expressed better and more aptly than a cross, which can have many other meanings. On the other hand, an interpretation of the cross is symbolic when it puts the cross beyond all conceivable explanations, regarding it as expressing an as yet unknown and incomprehensible fact of a mystical or transcendent, i.e., psychological, nature, which simply finds itself most appropriately represented in the cross.[ Ibid., par. 815.]
Whether something is interpreted as a symbol or a sign depends mainly on the attitude of the observer. Jung linked the semiotic and symbolic approaches, respectively, to the causal and final points of view. He acknowledged the importance of both.
Psychic development cannot be accomplished by intention and will alone; it needs the attraction of the symbol, whose value quantum exceeds that of the cause. But the formation of a symbol cannot take place until the mind has dwelt long enough on the elementary facts, that is to say until the inner or outer necessities of the life-process have brought about a transformation of energy.[“On Psychic Energy,” CW 8, par. 47.]
The symbolic attitude is at bottom constructive, in that it gives priority to understanding the meaning or purpose of psychological phenomena, rather than seeking a reductive explanation.
There are, of course, neurotics who regard their unconscious products, which are mostly morbid symptoms, as symbols of supreme importance. Generally, however, this is not what happens. On the contrary, the neurotic of today is only too prone to regard a product that may actually be full of significance as a mere “symptom.[Definitions, CW 6, par. 821.]
Jung’s primary interest in symbols lay in their ability to transform and redirect instinctive energy.
How are we to explain religious processes, for instance, whose nature is essentially symbolical? In abstract form, symbols are religious ideas; in the form of action, they are rites or ceremonies. They are the manifestation and expression of excess libido. At the same time they are stepping-stones to new activities, which must be called cultural in order to distinguish them from the instinctual functions that run their regular course according to natural law.[“On Psychic Energy,” CW 8, par. 91.]
The formation of symbols is going on all the time within the psyche, appearing in fantasies and dreams. In analysis, after reductive explanations have been exhausted, symbol-formation is reinforced by the constructive approach. The aim is to make instinctive energy available for meaningful work and a productive life.
.directory
Events, Podcasts, Videos, Books & Journals, Related Organisations, IAAP Organisations
Obviously, to get this website started we have taken the liberty of searching and adding events to this website. If we have shared your event, and you really wish we hadn’t, Contact Us and we will remove the offending article.
Jungian.Directory is a place to announce and promote your Events, Books, Courses, Organisation, Reading Groups, your Analytic Practice & exciting projects.