ANALYTICAL PSYCHOLOGY OF K. JUNG

Strictly speaking, from the position of Freud himself and his orthodox followers, only classical Freudian psychoanalysis can be called psychoanalysis. Therefore, many dispute the right to classify Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961) and the psychoanalytic direction he developed to psychoanalysis and call it analytical , deep-seated psychology .

Karl Jung was one of the first, most talented and most beloved students of Sigmund Freud, and even, at the suggestion of Freud himself, was elected the first president of the International Psychoanalytic Association.

However, after the first years of admiration for Freud (who really opened new vast horizons of psychology and psychotherapy, which Jung did not deny later) and unconditional adherence to his theory and practice. Jung is beginning to show more and more that Freud (in the sense of interpretation and conducting psychoanalysis) and “psychoanalytic freethinking” that was not encouraged by Freud.

On the one hand, he questioned some of the basic tenets of classical psychoanalysis (considering the role of sexual instinct exaggerated, albeit important, and the role of early childhood to exaggerate, albeit important, the reasons for character development, neurosis, and various psychological problems of adults) , found it possible to deviate from Freud's meticulously precise prescription of carrying out individual techniques.

On the other hand, he “dared” to expand independently the scope of psychoanalysis far beyond the framework of classical Freudianism, including the study and interpretation of mythology, various, primarily Eastern, religions and religious rituals, and even parapsychology and alchemy, which was completely unacceptable for Freud who considered himself a consistent materialist. Freud always emphasized his atheism, considering religion to be a mass neurosis (which did not prevent theologians from later trying to combine Freudianism as a fashionable trend that attracted the intelligentsia with religion), and Jung was always a believer.

All this was the basis for the “excommunication of the apostate” from classical psychoanalysis, but not only did not diminish the authority of C. Jung and his teachings, but made him the undisputed leader in the new psychoanalytic branch, and in the opinion of many - in an independent scientific and practical direction, which called "deep psychology."

It was a pleasant case for science, when a dispute between two great scientists and their schools did not diminish the authority of any of them. Each left and grew a large number of sincere supporters, propagandists and followers.

Each of these psychoanalytic areas - Freudian psychoanalysis and Jung's in-depth psychology - spurred further development of the theory and practice of modern psychology and psychotherapy and brought not only interesting theoretical findings, but also practical benefits to specific people in overcoming neuroses and solving personal and interpersonal psychological problems.

The analytical psychology of Jung, no less than Freudian psychoanalysis, became an integral feature of modern social culture, having exerted its influence not only on psychotherapeutic theory and practice, but also on art, science and other spheres of modern society.

Karl Jung was the first to introduce the concept of “collective unconscious” into psychology, psychotherapy, and, one can say with philosophy, whereas before him Freud himself and all supporters of psychoanalysis always talked only about the individual unconscious.

What is the "collective unconscious" for Jung?

He believed that the individual unconscious does not exist by itself, but rather “floats” in the ocean of the collective unconscious. This is a logical assumption. Jung possessed what we call "cosmic sensation," that is, the ever-present feeling that in the Universe "everything is connected with everything."

At the same time, we put into the word “Cosmos” its original meaning, which the ancient Greek philosophers gave it, “the originally established Order in the Universe,” to which everything from the small to the great obeys, but the fact that these interrelationships are not always obvious does not mean that they do not exist.

Therefore, it is not only logical, but also quite “materialistic” and “dialectical” to assume that the human psyche, which means that its unconscious part, not disputed by anyone, despite its individual uniqueness, is not isolated and influenced.

At the same time, genetic influence - the transfer of certain hereditary information - is no longer disputed by anyone today (only the degree and nature of such hereditary influence are discussed).

And since Albert Einstein proclaimed the unity of space and time, it can be assumed that the influence of the collective unconscious on the individual extends not only in time (in the continuity of generations), but also in space, that is, under the influence of the modern collective unconscious that surrounds us and even more so - the nearest and distant societies (groups and communities of different scale).

This is confirmed by the phenomena of “contamination” of people, sometimes in large masses, by certain mental states at an unconscious level that have been noted in human history for a long time and studied in detail in V. Bekhterev.

We specifically, on the one hand, somewhat exceeded, and on the other, we simplified in our arguments the problems of the collective unconscious compared to how Karl Jung approached them. It was important for us to remove the aura of mysticism injected around his teachings (which sometimes fascinated him too). The interpretation of the nature and mutual influence of these connections really gives rise to many interesting hypotheses and disputes, including among the followers of Jung.

Jung strongly introduced the concept of "archetypes" into the theory of the collective unconscious. To be fair, it should be noted that this term was also used by Plato, Aristotle, and their followers.

At a later time, Johann Wolfgang Goethe, who was not only a great poet and playwright, turned to the concept of archetypes, but for many years engaged in the most serious study of the development of life on Earth and collected a unique collection of plants.

The original findings of Goethe, which did not in many respects coincide with the evolutionary theory of the origin of Charles Darwin’s species, served as the basis for creating anthroposophy for Rudolf Steiner and meet many supporters among well-known scientists in our time, which require independent consideration, which is not part of our work.

We only emphasize that the concept of archetypes was not introduced by Carl Jung, as some popularizers of his teachings write, but, of course, it was from Jung that it acquired the psychological (psychoanalytic) meaning that is attached to it in depth psychology and psychotherapy.

Jung's scientific achievements were further developed in the "crossing" with Freud's ingenious discovery of the most important and often dominant role of the unconscious. Therefore, we will briefly show the “second root” (the first is the Freudian unconscious), which lies at the heart of Jung's archetypes.

Aristotle and Goethe (we call only those who made a fundamental contribution to the interpretation of archetypes) believed that in nature all its diversity did not develop (as Darwin later asserted) from any one primary element of life that came from Darwin allowed God’s primary impetus as one of the hypotheses), and each type of plant and animal world had its own archetype - an ideal model, as if the architect’s plan (Cosmos, Higher Mind, God).

Remember, the Gospel of John begins in Russian and in a number of other translations the phrase "In the beginning was the word." But after all, the "logo" can be translated not only as a "word", but also as a "knowledge", "idea".

So, maybe, it is more correct (and from the point of view of Aristotle and Goethe this is certainly the case) to translate “In the beginning was the idea” (plan, plan for the creation of the world), and then its implementation. "... Each creature in a pair ..." - is it not a figurative designation of archetypes of all kinds, which then have already received a certain development and change, but it is within the idea of ​​each type, and each species has developed and improved within its archetype ?

This controversial, but, in the opinion of many serious scientists, the hypothesis having the right to existence certainly influenced the modification of the psychoanalytic views of Carl Jung, although he introduced a lot of fundamentally new, his own, psychological and psychoanalytic to the concept of archetypes.

Jung's archetypes are existing in various nations (in many cases very similar to each other) certain general forms of mental representations about the father, mother, leader, mythological characters of legends and traditions, personifying various elements and forces of good and evil. Of course, for each individual person these common tribal or national archetypes are filled with some kind of individual content, but still some common basic features remain and unite around themselves the given human societies, their moral and moral values, are objects of admiration, hope or fear. .

Jung did a tremendous job of studying the history, mythology, rituals and traditions of different tribes and nations. Based on the processing of this colossal material, he managed to identify six principal archetypes, which have different names for different peoples, but united by a certain generality of features. Therefore, he gave the names to archetypes not by their national names, but by types, reflecting a certain psychological essence that clearly distinguishes them from others.

The six main archetypes: Persona, Ego, Shadow, Anima and Animus, Self . Moreover, all these types simultaneously live in each of us, taking their place and at the same time in one way or another interacting with each other, supporting or interfering, contradicting each other.

By the term Persona, Jung means our vision, the acceptance of ourselves, our character in relation to the outside world. How we behave with different people, in different places, under different circumstances. What is our appearance we try to teach others. At the same time, it is important to remember that it is about our perception of ourselves in society, our appearance, our behavior, and the impression we make on others.

This does not mean at all that our ideas in all these parameters are objective and others really perceive us as such. The point is precisely that we believe that we make such an impression. This opinion of ourselves may or may not coincide with the reality and opinion of us about others.

The next important archetypal term is Ego .

With this term, Jung defines the center of our consciousness , which (we believe) controls and directs our behavior logically and purposefully in accordance with our goals and objective circumstances.

Again, we draw your attention to the fact that we are talking about the fact that we think this way , but this is our opinion and even our confidence may, as in the previous case (with Persona), coincide, or may not coincide with reality.

Shadow is also a center, but no longer of consciousness, but of our individual unconscious , a focus for material that has been ousted from consciousness. It includes tendencies, desires, memories and experiences, which are denied by the individual as incompatible with it or contradicting social standards and ideals.

The concepts of Anima and Animus are called archetypical for a given people (community) and unconscious reference points refracted through individual consciousness on what the “real” woman (Anima) and “real” man (Animus) must correspond to (appearance and behavior) .

These accepted in the given people, nation, community, samples, requirements, expositions (expectations of a certain type of appearance and behavior) largely give one more, derived from them, the type of relationship between men and women, the relationship of a man to a woman (and expectations from her a certain type of relationship to yourself) and vice versa.

I repeat, these typical patterns for a given society (samples, models) undergo a certain transformation in the individual consciousness due to personal characteristics and life experience of each person, but retain the common features of a given society, and it is from the standpoint of attitudes and traditions of society that affect the perception these models by each individual and to a large extent determine mental and behavioral reactions to their own or someone else's deviation from the criteria adopted in this society.

A special, central place among the archetypes distinguished by Jung is occupied by the so-called Self. The self organizes and protects the integrity and orderliness of the individual.

It is here that the adaptation and coordination interaction of the unconscious and the conscious takes place, which find compromises, eliminate or soften the contradictions between instinctive manifestations that are unacceptable in a given form or in given conditions, that is, not only reconcile biological needs and social norms, but also often combine their efforts. .

For example, aggressiveness can be transformed into assertiveness in achieving socially acceptable and even prestigious goals: winning competitions, primacy in art, business, politics, stubborn self-improvement, etc.

On the self lies the crucial task of preserving the integrity of the individual, it reconciles and coordinates the consciousness and the unconscious. It is when the self does not cope with this task, and various kinds of internal conflicts, neuroses, neuropsychiatric disorders, complexes, breakdowns and even severe mental disorders arise.

At present, the concepts of extraversion and introversion that characterize a different orientation of a person, or rather, attention, thoughts, psychological energy of a person , are firmly incorporated into psychology and psychotherapy: from the outside to external objects and actions or from the inside to self-learning, self-deepening, reflection.

As is already clear from the names themselves, the attention and activities of the extrovert are directed outward, and the introvert is directed into its inner world.

Naturally, and this was emphasized by Jung, there can be no “pure” extroverts and introverts in nature. It is only about the predominance of a certain type of mental states and behavioral reactions.

The brightest extrovert, living the outer life, periodically goes into itself, into its experiences and reflections. Similarly, the most self-deepening introvert, if he does not suffer from autism (not in the psychoanalytic sense of one of the mechanisms of protection of neurosis, but as a classic psychiatric diagnosis of a severe mental illness), periodically switches its attention and actions to external objects.

By the way, it is precisely in this that there is often an error not only of “not psychologists”, but even some beginning psychologists, mostly first-year students. I really want as a result of testing to find out who I or my friend is - an introvert or an extrovert. Such a categorical expectation usually leads to doubts about the correctness of testing when compared with real life impressions about oneself or about another one being tested.

This is absolutely normal: every extrovert will have introvertive moments and reactions, and vice versa. Moreover, as shown by the statistics of research conducted by American scientists on a large number of university students, approximately one third of people have extraversion and introvertive signs that are not clearly expressed or evenly distributed. Such people are called ambavaert.

A typical mistake of the beginner “testers” is an attempt to certainly attribute oneself or another to choleric men, sanguine, phlegmatic or melancholic , to left-hemispheric or right-hemispheric , or to one of the types of personal accentuations that are hardly encountered in their pure form.

Quite often, personality traits and states are distributed fairly evenly, without the predominance of a particular type. If, nevertheless, on the basis of testing or observation, they are assigned to one category or another, then it should be remembered that this is only a predominance of some type.

At the same time, for serious analysis and, moreover, practical recommendations, one should carefully analyze and take into account the degree of “confusion” in the given context of personality traits and states of other adjacent types and reactions.

The same “reasonable” attitude should be towards another interesting classification of people developed by K. Jung according to the type of domination of one of four psychological functions: sensations, intuitions, emotions, thinking.

Accordingly, we can talk about the sensory, intuitive, emotional and mental personality type.

Moreover, with the proper implementation of this process, in the eyes of the client, this does not look like a gradual withdrawal of the psychotherapist, but as an increasing sense of one’s own inner strength, the ability to cope with one’s own problems, gain the courage to actually look at oneself and the situation, self-confidence and master practical solutions situations that previously seemed hopeless.

Jung was the first psychoanalyst to use to identify the sources of neurosis hidden in the unconscious sphere that are not free (according to Freud’s categorical prescription), but the so-called directed associations. That is, the client did not just let his “word creation” into the free flow of consciousness, but aimed it (also, however, without caring for strict logic and connectedness) in the direction given by the psychotherapist.

Practically this happens as follows. The psychotherapist utters a word, and the client begins to say everything that will break loose from the language in response to this word, not trying to comprehend and especially to organize the logical connection of his words and sentences with a given stimulus. The psychotherapist calls those words which, in his opinion, can push the associative verbal flow of the client in the right (at least presumably) for the search direction.

Successful conduct of such a procedure requires special thorough preparation and a lot of practical experience of the psychotherapist. He must constantly remember that the true causes of neurosis are sometimes hidden very deeply and the removal of their defense mechanisms is often very painful.

Therefore, choosing stimulus words, the psychotherapist, on the one hand, tries to come as close as possible to the pain point, and on the other hand, be ready to step back or to the side at any moment, feeling that the client is not ready to expose this pain point and can (often unconsciously) hide it even deeper or (also unconsciously) protect it by blocking the path of contact with the psychotherapist.

Therefore, the procedure of the first sessions usually begins with what the therapist calls really random words that have no direct connection with the problem, and then gradually narrows the circles around the intended goal, with a willingness to respond quickly and retreat or change the direction of the search, depending on the response, not only verbal, but also the emotional reactions of the client.

The system of analysis of the received answers has regularities refined (and refined) in the process of many years of experience, although it is not so strictly regulated as the system of interpretation of the material in classical psychoanalysis by S. Freud. For example, it has been established that in most cases an associative response, given with a certain delay and an involuntary emotional reaction, shows that the word “abandoned” by the psychotherapist to some extent hurt the client and should be searched in this direction. In many cases, such a search by the principle of a child's game “warmer, even warmer, hot” helps the psychotherapist to quickly find the true causes of the client's problem than classical psychoanalysis.

Z. Freud objected to this approach, believing that directed psychoanalysis, although speeding up the search process, could impose a movement on the client not in the true direction, but in an unwittingly prompted direction by the psychotherapist (by the way, for the same reason, Freud refused psychoanalysis under hypnosis, believing that the hypnotized can say not what he thinks, but what, in his opinion, the hypnotist wants to hear from him).

Nevertheless, the method of directed associations of C. Jung is currently quite popular and has analogues not only in psychotherapy, but also, for example, in the work of the investigator with the suspect, and although here, of course, not incoherent answers are assumed, many methods of their analysis finds of Jung and his followers.

Some authors believe that it is this idea (the delay and involuntary coloring of the answer) that laid the foundation for the famous lie detector.

By the way, the first technical device registering various psychophysiological reactions to correct and incorrect answers, which became famous (despite its numerous inaccuracies and errors) under the name of the lie detector, was developed in the laboratory of the Gubernian Cheka by the young and later famous Soviet psychologist Alexander Luria .