Carl Jung, a psychiatrist of the early twentieth century, proposed the idea of a "collective unconscious" that is commonly shared by all humans. This idea has moderate and radical implications, ranging from the development of morals on a seemingly "instinctual" basis to large numbers of people subconsciously predicting a disaster. The conflict here is over accepting Jung's hypothesis of the collective unconscious.
As a student who particularly likes science class, I am quick to dismiss "supernatural" phenomena such as premonition. However, there is a possibility that people could unconsciously share a thought process and a set of morals, and evidence exists suggesting humans might have some ability to predict disaster. This article from the International Association for Analytical Psychology argues an excellent point that I strongly agree with: Jung's broader idea of archetypes was correct, but his mechanism was probably wrong. Instead of some form of collective unconscious force uniting people to pursue moral causes, it has been determined that human genetics are very similar in expression of morality and intellectual potential. Natural selection is not the supernatural force that Jung's work sometimes suggests, but it does connect humans on a basic level. Now you may not have believed me when I said there is evidence for human premonition, but random number generators have been reported to follow certain trends just before major disasters, such as September 11. A physics forum discussion analyzes the reliability and significance of this data. Paging through the many comments and suggested readings from this forum, I've decided to agree with the writers of this article, who feel that the trends in the random number generator are little more than coincidence. As Jung's suggestion of collective unconscious is unnecessary to describe the trends discussed in this paragraph, I find myself unable to subscribe to his theory.
I don't believe that a collective unconscious is shared between all people. One of the primary reasons for this is that establishing human connection is difficult. Even when it is facilitated by the internet, meaningful interaction that spans cultures, races, economic class, and national backgrounds is extraordinarily challenging to maintain. Basic ideals may be similar, but specific grievances are so individualistic and varied that they can be challenging to classify in a system of collective unconscious. I feel that accepting a list of archetypes as the foundation for human thought and morality severely restricts individualism and originality.
Carl Jung's idea of this collective unconscious is very interesting, as is your commentary on it. I think it would be interesting to look at Sigmund Freud's stance on consciousness as well and hear your opinion (after all, Jung was a student of Freud's for some time). Freud developed the psychodynamic theory, which emphasized unconscious factors. In addition he developed the psychoanalytic therapy for patients with abnormal behavior. Freud believed that our behaviors may be determined by irrational forces outside of our conscious awareness. Consciousness seems to be a core element to both Jung and Freud's ideas here. Consciousness is the level of awareness people have at a given moment. Freud pointed out three levels of this: the conscious (everything we are aware of at a certain time), the preconscious (thoughts, feelings, and memories we can easily bring to conscious level), and the unconscious (thoughts, feelings, and memories that are extremely difficult to bring to the conscious level and sometimes appear as dreams). It's easy to say what I am doing right now because the answer currently resides in my conscious mind. It is a little harder to say what I did a few weeks ago. I have to think a little, but eventually I can get to the answer. However, if I had to recall what I did on this day six years ago...well, I'd have no idea. If you asked me this question, I would say "who knows?" Freud would say, everyone should know--the memory is just in your unconscious mind. Freud, however, goes even further to state different structures of the mind. There is the id, which is the primitive side of our personality. The id is selfish and tough and is in our unconscious mind. The superego contains the conscience, which determines right from wrong. It exists in all three levels of the mind and helps us aim for good (whereas the id is the little devil whispering in one ear). Finally, the ego is the middle ground. It seeks to resolve conflict between the id and superego. The ego stands for reason and good sense. It exists in the conscious and preconscious levels.
ReplyDeleteI feel that villains, enemies, and the things we dislike are often manifestations of our id-- basically, our shadows! So how does one escape themselves? What do you think of Freud's concepts of consciousness compared to that of Jung's?
Thanks for the contribution! I'm intrigued by a lot of the ideas you brought up, especially the point about the unconscious processes determining whether we make moral decisions. In my next post, I'm planning on exploring the notion of free will, and with that there will be a lot of questions raised about unconscious decisions and actions being made. Without spoiling too much, I'd just like to say that factors we are not conscious of probably play the most critical role in our decision-making processes, thereby limiting our free will.
Delete