Is Jung less Repressive than Freud?

By kurdt, Student

Upon completing this paper I was informed that 'repression' is actually Freudian terminology, so future rewrites of this paper will include new 'tristan' vocabulary which I have yet to invent.

An essay hosted at LiteratureClassics.com

Is Jung Less Repressive than Freud?

1.1 Introduction

Today’s culture is obsessed with freedom. Freethinking, spirituality, dogmatism and repression have become buzzwords for this “new age” generation of thinkers. Philosophy, Psychology and Religion are often no longer found under separate sections at bookstores, but rather under the inclusive heading of “New Age Spirituality”. As has been done in all periods of human history, we look behind us and search for renegades in the past that seem to have pioneered our current intellectual trends. From the field of psychology, many have found Carl Gustav Jung to be a predecessor of modern anti-dogmatic thought. Post Modern writers such as Timothy Findley, and musicians like James Maynard Keenan of Tool have taken up the task of portraying Jung and his ideas to modern audiences, and showing him as a free thinker of his day. Nevertheless, is Jung really so much less repressive than his contemporaries? Does his view of human nature really see us as so much less entangled by our instincts and trapped by our socialization as Freud? After the careful consideration of both possibilities, and examination of several other works on the larger issue of Freud and Jung’s relationship, I have determined that the popular opinion is correct.
Already readers may have noticed a potential problem with this discussion: in what sense do I intend to deal with the term “repression”. Do I mean the act of repressing thought in the intellectual sense, as in being dogmatic in ones theories, negating possibilities without argument and leaving ones own beliefs in-falsifiable? Or do I mean the conscious or unconscious exclusion of impulses, fears or desires from the conscious mind? Actually, I mean to discuss both, as both
are relevant to the topic at hand . To attend the possible confusion that could arise from two separate definitions for one word, I will refer to the former sort of repression as cogno-repression, and to the later as psycho-repression.

1.2 Psycho-Repression

Let us first explore the more difficult topic, psycho-repression. To understand this it is not sufficient only to analyze Freudian and Jungian texts as literature; we must actually know something about psychology. Terms such as psycho-analysis, primal repression, repression proper, ego, id and anima all become pertinent. To further complicate our task, understanding Freudian repression, which we must compare with Jung to prove our point, is among the more difficult tasks in understanding psycho-analysis (Hogenson 1983). Freud’s argument concerning repression concerns the whole of the mental cosmos. It defines why the different regions of mentality exist, and establishes the economic-like relations between. Unlike Jung, Freud dictates that the unconscious and pre-conscious could not even exist independent of repression: since otherwise we would be all conscious of ourselves. Premiere Jungian psychologist George Hogenson sees an implication of this to be that the origin of the unconscious must accommodate the mechanism of repression (Hogenson 1983). Jung, showing his commitment to the nature side of that collision which is to him psychology , counters this by saying that some of the unconscious is largely mental process of which we needn’t be conscious: such as breathing, digestion etc…
Jung was almost certainly more helpful to his patients than Freud. Jung spent nine years in public practice at the insane asylum of Burgholzli in Zurich. Freud, on the other hand, never practiced publicly, and has even been accused of sending a patient to an insane asylum after he “cured” her to prevent her from telling it differently. Also, Jung seems to understand the differences between theoretical psychology and actual treatment.
For the purposes of therapy, moreover, it is highly important for the analyst to admit his lack of understanding from time to time, for nothing is more unbearable for the patient than to be always understood. (Jung 1933)

Furthermore, Jung understands that psychology is not an absolute science, that there are no absolute cures and that he cannot help everyone. In his anthology The Essential Jung, Storr argues “[Jung] was… modest in his therapeutic claims, recognizing that only a limited number of cases responded to analysis, and that partial alleviation was more common than cure…. Jung was one of the first to recognize that a psychotic episode could be precipitated by analysis.”(Storr 1983)
Jung seems also to have a brighter, less Hobbesian view than Freud on the human condition. He criticizes not only Freud, but also Adler, his contemporary, for focusing on the ‘sick’ part of the human mind, and neglecting too much its ‘good’ side.
Both schools, to my way of thinking, deserve reproach for over-emphasizing the pathological aspect of life and for interpreting man too exclusively in the light of his defects…. For my part I prefer to look at man in the light of what in him is healthy and sound, and to free the sick man from that point of view which colours every page Freud has written. Freud’s teaching is definitely one-sided in that it generalizes from facts that are relevant only to the neurotic states of mind…(Jung 1933)

However, Jung does believe we are psychologically stuck to our biological disposition. We can escape it only with harsh results.
We can never legitimately cut loose from our archetypal foundations unless we are prepared to pay the price of a neurosis, any more than we can rid ourselves of our body and its organs without committing suicide. If we cannot deny the archetypes or otherwise neutralize them, we are confronted, at every new stage in the differentiation of consciousness to which civilization attains, with the task of finding a new interpretation appropriate to this stage, in order to connect the life of the past that still exists in us with the life of the present, which threatens to slip away from it. (Jung, from Storr 1983)

Here, Jung’s view of archetypal foundations seems alike to the view of human nature popular in classical Greece: that man’s being is somehow predisposed at or before birth. This principal is used by Aristotle in Politics to justify slavery: “…from the hour of [human] birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule. “(Aristotle) Also this idea of pre existence determination can be seen in Plato’s theory of innate knowledge or “anamnesis” .

1.3 Cogno-Repression

Here I will deal with the theme of repression in the methods of analysis, instead of conclusions, in Freudian and Jungian psychology. Jung hints at many times at the dogmatism in Freudian psychological theory. In Modern Man in Search of a Soul, Jung states it obvious that in dream analysis every case should be considered completely new: as the sheer number of things a given dream may be referring to is so broad.
It goes without saying that he should hold no preconceived opinions based upon a particular theory, but stand ready in every single case to construct a totally new theory of dreams. (Jung 1933)

Dreams may give expression to ineluctable truths, to philosophical pronouncements, illusions, wild fantasies, memories, plans, anticipations, irrational experiences, even telepathic visions, and heaven knows what besides. (Jung 1933)

Jung’s own method of dream analysis, if it even qualifies as a method, rejects abstract metaphorical interpretation. For Jung dreams mean exactly what they seem to mean. “If we associate freely [Freudian Method] to a dream, our complexes will turn up right enough, but we shall hardly ever discover the meaning of the dream. To do this, we must keep as close as possible to the dream-images themselves .”(Jung 1933) This is not as simple as one may at first imagine, as many dreams seem to mean nothing. Jung solves this problem by not looking at dreams in and of themselves so much, but by looking at whole series of them.
Jung never argues that Freud was simply incorrect in his theories of the psyche, only that he had found only one of many possible interpretations. The problem arises from the fact that Freud’s objective was not to establish one of many possible interpretations, but rather to establish the true interpretation. Hogenson argues:
Because of the role of the killing of the father in [Oedipus]…Freud had to assert the primacy of repression. This leads to the conclusion that in Freud’s hands Oedipus and the taboo against incest close off access to the unconscious. In other words, once the unconscious in interpreted by recourse to Freud’s reading of this myth, it is possible to prevent any other interpretation from taking place. This is the goal and function of a dogmatic symbol: that it provide a powerful interpretation of a numinous experience and that it prevent any further interpretations. (Hogenson 1983)

Not all of Jung’s intellectual work is a study of empiricism and open mindedness. Many have accused Jung of flubbing his dissertation. Published in 1902, On the Psychology of So-Called Occult Phenomena discusses the psychology of a female somnambulist (sleepwalker). The somnambulist in question frequently “reincarnated” herself into a women so ancient that she called herself a mother of nations. Jung concludes that “the patient’s reincarnation theory, in which she appears as the mother of countless thousands, springs… straight from an exuberant fantasy which is very characteristic of the puberty Period….the dream of fertility, that has created these monstrous ideas in the patient.”(Hogenson 1983) An important aspect of his investigation is ignored, covered up by the dissertation. Hogenson stipulates, “Helene (the somnambulist) seems to have held something of an adolescent infatuation for [Jung] . As a consequence, reconstructions of the séances by other members of the family emphasized [the somnambulist] particular attention to the young psychologist, a factor that is not addressed in the dissertation. Jung’s reluctance to acknowledge this point continued into his old age…”(Hogenson 1983) Jung refused throughout his life to admit to this accusation, and covered it up even in his autobiography.

Jung was not the only one to withhold biographical information for the sake of his authority. George B. Hogenson begins his Essay Jung’s Struggle with Freud with this quote from Jung’s autobiography:Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Ironically enough, this is the same autobiography in which Jung covers up his relation to the somnambulist.
Freud had a dream-I would not think it right to air the problem it involved. I interpreted it as best I could, but added that a great deal more could be said about it if he would supply me with some additional details fro his private life. Freud’s response to these words was a curious look- a look of utmost suspicion. Then he said, “But I cannot risk my authority!” At that moment he lost it altogether. That sentence burned itself into my memory; and in it the end of our relationship was already foreshadowed. Freud was placing personal authority above truth. (Hogenson 1983)

What we should not ignore however, is the relevance of withholding information in both cases. For Jung, divulging his actual relation to the somnambulist would have tarnished his reputation as a psychologist. His doctoral degree would probably not have been withdrawn. The uncovering of this information does nothing to disprove any of Jung’s later, more important work. However, in Freud’s case the silence was for the sake of defending his psychological theories, and hence not only his reputation in life, but also the validity of his theories in death. For this reason Freud’s repression of information is more relevant to our posthumous study of Jung and Freud’s psychology.



1.4 Modern Artists’ Interpretation

In a biography entitled C.G. Jung, Anthony Storr paints Jung as an advocate of creativity.
Jung regarded creative persons, including himself, both as being ‘ahead of their time’ and as being in touch with a source of superior wisdom which might be variously referred to as the ‘collective unconscious’ or later, quite openly as God.(Storr 1973)

It is quite ironic that almost a century James Keenan Maynard of Tool took up Jungian ideas in his music. The song “46 & 2” from the album Aenima utilizes concepts like the Jungian Shadow . Here are the song’s closing lines:
See my shadow changing
Stretching up and over me
Soften this old armour
Hoping I can clear the way
By stepping through my shadow
Coming out the other side
Step into the shadow
Forty six and two are just ahead of me. (Tool 1996)

Although the title of the song refers to the “flower of life” concept propagated by new age non-intellectuals such as Drunvalo Melchizadek, it is interesting how Maynard uses the dichotomy of the ego/shadow for spiritual progression in the individual. Melchizadek says that our current chromosome makeup (44&2: 2 sets of 22 autosomes, and two sex chromosomes) is imbalanced. The achievement of the 46&2 chromosome level would mean that Humans would develop what may be termed as a “collective conscious” in which we would become extremely aware of others emotions. He also says we would all grow to be 2 feet taller. According to him, we will reach the 46&2 chromosome level only when we come together as humanity and acknowledge our spiritual destiny. This was to happen around the year 1999 but Melchizadek has postponed it to 2008 because of the current state of the world(Melchizadek 2002). The obvious falsity and irrational basis and ends of this theory allow Maynard to use it as a modern Metaphor for the spiritual ideal that is “just ahead of [us]” but can never be reached because, as Jung stipulates, we can never completely suppress one side of a psychological dichotomy or neurosis will incur (Storr 1983). However, instead of suppressing the Shadow to reach the 46 and 2 state, he decides to accept his faults, his complexes, all that he finds undesirable about himself and becomes enlightened.
I choose to live and to
Lie, kill and give and to
Die, learn and love and to
Do what it takes to step through (Tool 1996)

Another modern artist who has picked up on the current popularity of Carl Jung is celebrated Canadian author Timothy Findley. His recent novel Pilgrim gives us another example of contemporary interpretations of Jung. In Pilgrim, Jung acts as one of Findley’s protagonists; as such we get a first hand glimpse at what Findley thinks Jung’s life resembled.
Findley portrays Jung as a renegade, free thinking psychologist who refuses to accept claims that his patients cannot be helped, refuses to be blinded by reason, “detest[s] theories”(Findley 1999), and insists always that “[a]ll the doors must be left standing open”(Findley 1999). However, Findley also shows a Jung who is far less transcendent socially than in the intellectual realm
Emma gave her customary rapid three knocks on the door and, preparing herself to speak, pushed it open
The sight that greeted her eyes could not have been real.
Nothing about it could be rationalized. It was cut from images seen exclusively in Emma’s worst dreams.
Jung was spread-eagled on his chair, his waist coat and shirt unbuttoned, his trousers opened and halfway down his thighs. His knees were parted and a woman knelt in the space between them, her back to Emma. (Findley 1999)

When Jung realizes he’s been caught, does he apologize? Of course not, what could possibly be more appropriate than taking stern words to the wife he just cheated on.
Do you realize I could have had a patient with me? How dare you burst in like that! How dare you do this!(Findley 1999)

At the end of the chapter Jung contemplates:

She does not understand that the prerequisite for a good marriage-or so it seems to me-is a license to be unfaithful (Findley 1999).

Jung, as the main character of Pilgrim, is by far the most developed. Findley develops Jung’s character by having him talk to himself. For a character to have a conversation with himself isn’t anything new, but this case is interesting because Jung is not simply talking with himself, but with his shadow. This can be inferred as it (he?) always provides the antithesis and asks the questions Jung tries to avoid
Standing, [Jung] filled his dumber with brandy.

Your behaving like a drunkard, Carl Gustav.

Who caress? I need it. Besides, I’m perfectly sober.

Setting oneself on fire is hardly an act of sobriety. My, my… One whole tumblerful of brandy. You won’t be sober for long.

Leave me alone.

You drink too much, Carl Gustav. You oughtn’t. Such a fie mind…

“Oh, for God’s sake leave me along!”

Jung’s words rattled the windowpanes.

Who are you talking to, Carl Gustav? There’s no one here but thee and me.
(Findley 1999)

1.5 Conclusion

Jung’s writings have been vastly interpreted as less repressive for this reason: they suggest the harmonization of dichotomies (ego and the shadow, persona and the anima) to be a process of spiritual enlightenment. This is, although does not always seem, opposed to the Freudian idea that the Id and Super-Ego must compromise, and that the internalized authority of the super ego is just as necessary as the instinctual “childness” of the Id. Jung’s dichotomies encourage the exploration of oneself. Do not repress, he might say, what we find undesirable, but rather accept it. It will not be nullified, but it is a step in the right direction.
Here I would like to return to examine a word which appeared in the introduction of this paper: Renegade. I think it fitting in the context of this artistically minded paper, instead of consulting a formal dictionary for a definition, rather to cite another modern musical group.
Now renegades are the people with their own philosophies
They change the course of history
Everyday people like you and me
(Rage Against the Machine 2000)

Is Jung a Renegade? By Zack De La Rocha’s definition it seems probable. He clings hard and fast to his “own philosophies” . He has certainly changed history to the extent that one can by influencing a generation of modern thinkers. So yes then, he is a Renegade. But would that not make Freud also a Renegade? Of course - Freud also strove against great odds for his theories, and was, at least in his own time, more successful! So can we tell for sure that Jung is less repressive than Freud? Foucault would argue no, since I can never completely separate myself or my argument from my fundamental biases. Still, ignoring that particular relativist function of continentalism, this discussion does seem to have pointed convincingly towards the confirmation of popular opinion.

Literature

Tool. “Forty Six & 2.” Aenima. Volcano Entertainment, 1996.

Jung, C. (1933) Modern Man in Search of A Soul Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York

Hogenson, G. (1983) Jung’s Struggle with Freud University of Notre Dame Press: London, New York

Smith, R. (1996) The Wounded Jung Northwestern University Press: Evanston

Storr, A. (1983) The Essential Jung Princeton University Press: Princeton

Storr, A. (1973) C.G. Jung New York Viking Press: New York

Jung, C. (1967) The Collected Works of C.G. Jung Princeton University Press: Princeton

Findley, T. (1999) Pilgrim Harper Perennial Canada: Toronto

Rage Against the Machine. “Renegades of Funk.” Renegades. Epic, 2000

Melchizadek, Drunvalo. Home Page. 4 Feb. 2002. 7 Mar. 2002.
< http://www.drunvalo.net/>