Differentiating the Shadow (in Jungian Theory): Demon and Self
Inflation, the Demon, and the Hero
It was very clear that the forces in the personality these irredeemable figures represented were not beneficial to or interested in the co-existence of the other parts of the personality. It seemed natural to call this figure the Demon . . . and adding this categorization to my study of dreams helped significantly to clarify some of the muddiness that clustered around "shadow figures" that conventional Jungian interpretation would flag but then bog down around. But as I analyzed these Demonic images, more complexities and mysteries arose. For instance, the general categories listed above were not the only things defining the Demon. Also essential to defining and understanding this figure was its relationship to other archetypal figures in the psyche (the "archetypes" or agents of the Core Complex). Al;though the Demon hated and sought to oppose the hero at every turn, often the Demon was able to impersonate the hero, putting on the heroic costume as a kind of doppelganger while still enforcing Demonic control and terror-driven stasis in the psyche. This Demonic hero-impersonation always leads to that perennial bogeyman of Jungianism: inflation.
Inflation has always been fascinating and motivating to me as a psychological phenomenon. I had suffered from it, and yet I also felt something Demonic discouraging the inflated sense of selfhood and purpose I had felt (especially in late adolescence). At some point in my mid to late twenties, I realized that the shame I felt discouraging me from an inflated identification was itself the cause of my temptation to identify inflatedly. The more I felt terrible about being inflated, the more I was in danger of falling headlong into the inflation. Depotentiation of inflation for me came with the gradual acceptance of my more unique and at times "heroic" qualities and achievements. When I desperately wanted to believe in the presence and value of these qualities and achievements but couldn't (out of shame) commit entirely to their acceptance and valuation, I was significantly more inflated. Of course, I didn't have the concept of the heroic I now work with, and the absence of this construct made any inner work significantly more difficult and painful. It all seemed to work exactly the opposite of what I had imagined . . . and what I had imagined was much the same as what Jung and other Jungians had also imagined. The Jungian prescribed "remedy" for inflation is the building up of a strong ego that can resist the temptation of archetypal identification that inflation prompts.
But this doesn't work in practice . . . and the fact that it doesn't have practical applicability is (I suspect) not admitted and realized among Jungians because a great sense of shame and anxiety about the issue clamps down on the Jungian imagination. Jungian inflation is an untouchable wound. But not being a trained Jungian while partaking (with significant diligence, I might add) of my own experimental "self-analysis", I had no tribal conformity to adhere to. I noted the connection between resistance to inflation and its increase long before I understood what was happening. Differentiating the concept of the Demon helped me realize much more deeply how inflation worked. By contrast, since this topic is taboo among conventional Jungians (as applied to their own tribal identity), Jungians have grown pathologically suspicious of the hero (who, in much Jungian conception is rather Demonic and inflated). The hero has become a casualty (collateral damage) of the Jungian disease because it is so mixed up with the Demon. But as the Demon is not differentiated in Jungianism, Jungianism must adhere to the muddy Jungian concepts of the hero, the Self (and animi), and the shadow.
From doing my own inner Work, I came to see that the differentiation of the Demon is no minute and esoteric matter. It is one of the cornerstones and fundamental definitions of individuation (and one that is portrayed widely enough in fairytales that Jungians should have spotted it). It doesn't take a wild speculative theory to see the Demon . . . we have to therefore question the failure of Jungians to identify it adequately. The logical and likely conclusion is that Jungians do not see/differentiate the Demon adequately because of a complex that colors the whole Jungian tribal mindset. Consciousness of the Demon has been exorcised in Jungian thinking. It can sometimes be touched on as "archetypal shadow" or "archetypal evil", but in these characterizations, the Demon is made overly abstract and is disowned. It is not the (personal) "shadow" that is the primary ethical problem of the individual (as Jung sometimes seemed to suggest); it's the problem of the Demon that is at the core of our internal ethical struggles.
The Demon and the Personal Shadow
Along that line of thought, not only does the hero/Demon relationship play a major role in the understanding of individuation, healing, and identity, the relationship between the Demon and the personal shadow must also be adequately understood. Not only are the Demon and the shadow not the same psychic phenomenon, any conflation between them is likely to result in increased dysfunction in the personality. The Demon, I've found, plays a very distinct role in relation to the shadow. The Demon's terrorizing, abuse, and totalitarian control is largely directed at the personal shadow (and at the ego through the personal shadow). The personal shadow, therefore, is partially defined by its susceptibility to the Demon's tyranny. The part of our personality that caves to the will of the Demon is the personal shadow, our weakest link, our deepest, most delicate vulnerability. Understanding this also helps us understand the Demon/hero relationship and the inflation Jungians associated with the hero. For, as the shadow is the weakest link in our identity or sense of self, the hero is the strongest. This heroic strength should not be confused with fortification or thick-skinned sturdiness. Rather, the hero is that attitude of the ego that is aligned with the Self system's dynamic, adaptive principle. It is an integrative, flexible, resilient strength that characterizes the hero.
But when the heroic attitude slips from Self-facilitation into personal shadow condemnation and censoring, we could say that the Demon has impersonated the hero and inflation has set in . . . or that we have given over heroic rights and costuming to a Demonic urge. During any individuation process, heroism (especially as it emerges "fresh" and hasn't been seasoned much) will be lost time and again to Demonic impersonation. The more we devote ourselves consciously to the heroic attitude of Self-facilitation, the more we are identifying with a particular stance that has a clear negation or opposite position. It is one of the great pitfalls of heroic inner work and healing. We find the personal shadow gets in the way of our progress. The personal shadow just can't become heroic, can't be whitewashed and redeemed or converted into more stellar and brilliant stuff. The temptation is to hate it or deny it in the name of "progress" and "healing" and "unraveling the True Self". But those things can only come (to the degree they are possible and at all valid) with the kind of shadow work that valuates, accepts, and manages to grudgingly love the personal shadow.
I should note here that I am biasing my description of the Demon/personal shadow relationship with a decidedly heroic perspective or hero-aligned ego position. That is, this perspective is one that develops only when individuation is actively engaged in. It should be said that it is at least as likely that an individual will have no conscious sense of differentiation regrading either the Demon or the personal shadow. In this case, the Demon (to the degree that it is empowered in the personality) will likely be perceived as an ego ally, a sense of discipline, a code to live by. The individual will not realize that this code helps repress and torture what is weak in them (the personal shadow). Such an individual has no functional sense of the personal shadow . . . and if we do not know our weakness, we will not know what the Demon is really up to in the psyche. Instead of coming into conscious conflict with the Demon (and realizing that the personal shadow is a part of the ego, a part or potential part of identity), the personal shadow will be unconsciously projected onto others and the ego will compulsively take up the Demonic attitude toward these shadowed others. This is essentially what passes for "normal" psychology in our modern society. In other words, "normal" modern society is distinctly Demonic . . . more on this below.
Of course, loving or even just tolerating the personal shadow can be very hard, especially when the personal shadow protects itself against the Demon's wrath by toadying for it (seemingly "betraying" the heroic ego). We so desperately want to be shadowless, but there is no growth in this fantasy. To be shadowless is to be "perfect", and "perfection" is static . . . and that which is static in the psyche is Demonic. What is Demonic is in conflict with the dynamic ordering principle of the Self. Which brings us to the next important, defining relationship of the Demon.
The Demon and the Self
The Self as Tribe
The Demon and the Self are the two opposing powerhouses in the personality. Lest I make it seem like I am just as guilty of the dualism I criticize Jung for, I wish to clarify this claim. Although, archetypally or based on common representations of Demon and Self, we can clearly see that a great conflict in the psyche exists . . . when we delve more scientifically or rationally into the figures of Self and Demon, we must ask what these figures are actually representing. It makes no sense that God and the Devil are battling for control over everyone's individual soul. That's a poetic metaphor.
There are two great powers in the psyche, though, that we can say with rational and logical justification are often in conflict: socialization and individuation. Socialization is the force exerted on the individual (and the individual's personality) from without, from others, from the tribe, the society, the civilization, the family, the peer group the individual lives within and is related to. It doesn't seek to make one an individual, but to (at best) make one socially useful and acceptable. In a tribal society that we might assume reflects the environment of evolutionary adaptedness for our species, socialization of individuals would be done in a way that makes the tribe most survivable . . . and we might expect that the various ceremonies and rituals and taboos that arise around the tribal identity have clearly survivable significances. Without trying to construct a neo-primitive fantasy of Utopia, we could say that the instinct for individuation (or for individualism or self-interest) is brought into close accord with the instinct for tribal survivability and group Eros. The cultural expressions of the tribe will help orient the individuals toward the valuation of the group Eros. In other words, the cultural artifacts that govern the passage into adulthood would be "designed" to associate the Self with the tribe for every member. If we all have a shared vision of the Self (God), we all facilitate the Self in the same goal (generally, survival and all it entails).
Without digressing too much into theories of "cultural evolution", I will just state that it is my opinion that we moderns no longer live in a society or culture in which the individuating instincts can functionally accord with social organization. There is too much complexity and diversity in modern culture for it to function as one integrated survival system . . . certainly not one in which the minds of every individual are largely aligned in purpose with the mind of the tribe as a whole. I.e., survival and success for each individual is not only NOT guaranteed in the successful programme of modern civilization, it is often seen as contrary to modern civilization's viability (by those best served by the form of modern civilization). That's where the still lingering idea of "social Darwinism" comes in. Survival of the fittest . . . and extinction for the "unfit". This is the mantra of the powerful and has been for ages. It is only in some "primitive" tribal societies that truly egalitarian social structure (in which the group interests and the individuals' interests are aligned) can be achieved (if still imperfectly).
As we live in a society in which collective organization does not guarantee survival for individuals, it seems to fall to contests of status to fill this role. But status is a limited natural resource. Only so much valuable status is available . . . and status would be meaningless if everyone could have their desired share of it. I'm not saying that tribal societies are status-free . . . but in such societies, both the lamed and incapable hunter and the chieftain can eat and have shelter (if anyone can eat and have shelter) . . . and probably reproduce. There is in many tribal societies a sense of valuation for tribal Eros or egalitarianism . . . a sense that every member is valuable and worth protecting. It is not low status that can sever the individual from the protection of tribal Eros. Only excommunication can do that . . . which probably comes about due to the failure to respect tribal taboos.
The Demon as Modern Cultural Introject
If we imagine that the relationship of the individual to the tribe in a tribal society is patterned on the ego/Self relationship . . . and remains adaptive and survivable in the same form that a modern individual's ego/Self relationship would remain adaptive and survivable . . . then we must also ask what replaces the symbol of the Self in modern society where the "tribe" protects only the self-interest of those with high enough status and not the all its members. It is, I would argue, very much the same thing that happens when a child has a terrible and abusive parent: some distorted parental imprint eclipses the healthy and functional instinctual ordering principle of the Self and stimulates traumatized, dysfunctional behavior. In the case of the abusive parent and in the case of the modern status-driven society, the disfigured imprinting that eclipses and distorts the ego/Self relationship is the Demon. Psychoanalysts might therefore call the Demon an "introject", something taken into the personality from the environment that becomes constructed as a representation of psychic structure within the personality. I don't really disagree with the idea of introjection applied to the Demon, but I feel that it does not do justice to the complexity and all-pervasiveness of the phenomenon.
A specific abuser or traumatizing parent might serve as a haunting introject that the Demon will manifest as for a specific individual, but the presence of the Demon in the individual's personality goes well beyond the re-traumatizing perpetrator figure. What is also happening is that all socialization and environmental influence is being channeled through a figure that is traumatizing. This, of course, eventually leads to a disturbance of the individual's sense of reality . . . or equally, we could say that the individual's connection to tribal Eros is damaged, and some part of them is severed from others, identified as an untouchable. This low-status personal shadow type figure becomes the main seat of identity in many trauma sufferers . . . or else identity is stitched onto the terrorizing Demon, and the ego champions Demonic self-destruction. Usually a bit of both occurs.
Trauma, especially early and severe trauma while the personality is forming, and most especially trauma involving an abusive parent, does not create the Demon, but it makes the Demon incredibly powerful, terrible, and characteristically "Demonic". But the Demon is present in all of our psyches to the degree that our socialization does not facilitate our instinctual will to survive, adapt, commune, and flourish. Commonly, the Demon in non-traumatized people (as well as in trauma victims) can be discerned as a kind of super-ego, a voice for the collective standards to which we are supposed to all individually aspire. The Demon controls the personality by pointing out and punishing the personal shadow . . . for it is "common sense" that all resistance to the personal shadow will make one socially successful and help one obtain status in our society. By refusing and hating the "bad", we become the "good". That's the logic of it, at least.
But the Self resists this pruning and movement toward "ideal" stasis and conformity in the psyche. Such Demonic pruning is not conducive to instinctually driven equilibrium with environment. It cannot adapt, because (as well-pruned as it is), alternatives are cut off. Eventually, this creates a build up of pressure in the psychic system, and the whole system of personality begins to fracture or grind to a halt (depression or some other psychological disease). It is as if the Demonic ordering principle takes advantage of our powerful drive to seek and hold tribal Eros in order to quash "excessive" dynamism in the personality. The Demon's idea of a perfect personality is one entirely composed of static, abstract laws where no conscious deliberation or assessment of options and potentials is necessary. For every X, the answer is Y. The system is automated by static routines that operate the same way regardless of circumstance or environment. There is no regard, therefore, in such static routines for anything Other. The Demonic system seeks to operate as if Otherness did not exist . . . and where Otherness interferes with this plan, it is attacked by the Demon.
The Demon as Meme
If this (very brief and incomplete) portrayal of the Demon is valid, we must ask why it is that so mechanistic and destructive an "introject" would have so much power over us. It seems like a characterization out of a fairytale (and for good reason) of some villain beyond humanness. In my struggle to understand why the Demon functions the way it appears to, I came to see that this sense of inhuman, perhaps "evil" orientation in the Demon is due precisely to the fact that the Demon is not specifically human or organic. It is not a true "intelligence" or sentient life form. It is NOT an instinctual archetype in the sense that the Self is. It is not a complex, dynamic, adaptive, living system. It IS a principle of organization, but this Demonic principle is based on information, not material. The Demon is the informational, non-physical stuff of culture fed back into the individual's living, psychic system. Perhaps even more descriptive than the term introject is the term "meme". The Demon can be seen as a kind of super-meme.
This will sound strange to anyone who has read my railings against mimetic theory. Have I changed my mind about memes? Not really. The Demon is a special case. Also, my main gripe against memes is the characterization by some mimeticists that suggests (even if figuratively) that they are self-motivated and "seek" to perpetuate themselves. This strikes me as an egoic projection and as un-biological. Memes are not self-motivated, insidious, invading, viruses seeking to propagate. All of those "agentic" characteristics are supplied by our theory of mind . . . and they belong to our biological psychic systems. Moreover, memes often serve the function of human agents and the will (both conscious and unconscious) of these agents.
In the case of the Demon, the wills of various human agents (or "powers") have become so diverse and complex that they are introjected into individuals as a kind of emergent form. It seems very likely that we have evolved to be cultural conduits and sponges. We are inherently tuned into culture-, peer-, and tribe-driven information. Regardless of consciousness, we are empathic, conforming, and tribal by nature. We are not only these things, not only herd animals, but these sociality instincts are enormously powerful in us. It is logical to assume that we have evolved such a susceptibility to cultural influences and transmissions because such influences and transmissions were adaptive and survivable in our environment of evolutionary adaptedness. Culture once served and facilitated instinctual drives . . . so our susceptibility to cultural "memes" was part of our functionality and adaptivity. It was a function of our sociality that made us, as a species, especially survivable. Strength in numbers . . . but no mere "ordinary" survival strength. Our species' unique set of assets has allowed our sociality to go beyond basic survivability and perpetuation to extreme inventiveness and re-creation of environment. But invention and innovation in the name of tribal survival and success has led to emergent social phenomena like agriculture, wealth, increased population density, extreme status distribution, and a discord between resources and the need and desire to possess them. We evolved, I think, for the Self to imprint on the tribe, on the collective . . . but unpredictable (to the evolutionary process) emergence has led to the construction of societies that are inadequate vessels for our projection of the Self . . . even as they also function to perpetuate genes even more effectively than tribal societies can.
As a result we are torn. We instinctively introject or imprint with socializations and organizational structures that are incompatible with functional psychic, dynamic organization. The instinctual Self system submerges and is clogged with foreign imprinting symbols. Anxiety increases as the Self system malfunctions. The Demon develops intertwined with the Self, originally indistinguishable. Only gradually, through the process of individuation, can the flawed imprint of psychic organization that is the Demon be disentangled from the functional Self system. That individuation process must extract (differentiate) all of the stultifying tribal associations to dysfunctional social institutions. This is extremely painful, because it requires the relinquishment of umbilical connections to tribal Eros . . . which we need in order to feel human and function properly. But the Demonic aspects must be differentiated from the Self aspects in the personality in order to heal and enable/facilitate the Self system and its instinctual, complex ordering principle. The commitment to such differentiating Self-facilitation is what I consider heroic and is the attitude around which archetypal symbols of heroism collect.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.