The dreams of the real medicine men of old dealt with where the herds had to be driven, whether there would be war or illness, rain or drought. As Jung put it, they 'negotiated with the Gods' about the fate, the real (also political, economic) fate, of their whole people. There is nothing comparable in the individuation process of today. Generally the dreams in today's individuation processes, as archetypal as they may be, are nonetheless only of personal, private significance, which clearly shows that the meaning that they undoubtedly have is suspended, idle meaning, similar to the meaning of a personal hobby. It is a meaning that is there, but is no longer true, inasmuch as truth would imply a meaning that also encompasses, and does justice to, what is really going on in our modern world.
This seems like an excellent place to start our new inquiry into the meaning and validity of individuation. Although the numerous claims (from tribal communities or from those who have studied them) that dreams (at least the dreams of the chiefs and shamans) instructed the tribe on matters of material survival must be understood as anecdotal evidence only, their gist needs to be reckoned with. The first question we should ask, then, is if our dreams and active imagination fantasies (as well as our artistic creations) are telling us how to survive or live more effectively. Many Jungians would leap forward zealously and state that, yes, absolutely they do. But I think we (as Giegerich does) need to differentiate between a feeling that our dreams are meaningful to us and enrich our spiritual lives or belief systems and a more concrete sense that dreams directly help us adapt to the world. And by "world" here, I mean the modern societies in which we must exist and function . . . not the tribal "world" of our Jungian or New Age buddies, our online chat groups and dream forums. Dreams (and dream work) may make us feel more "in touch with ourselves", but how might they be instructing us on how to make adaptive real world decisions?
It's a somewhat loaded question, I have to admit, because I don't really think dreams tell us which decisions to make, either "spiritually" or socially. Still, I recognize that the differentiation Giegerich makes between dreams in pre-modern, tribal societies and dreams in our contemporary society is useful and valid. Is Jungian individuation helping individuals who pursue it "live in the modern world"? Or (as one of a number of alternatives) is Jungian individuation pushing its "individuants" to regress toward a more primitive tribalism that is not adaptable in the modern environment?
Giegerich claims that individuation is an antique, but I think it is more accurate (and more modern) to weigh the Jungian construction of individuation on a scale of adaptivity rather than a scale of obsolescence. An idea or belief can become obsolete, but an "instinctual pattern of behavior" can only become maladaptive in the face of environmental change. But Giegerich's chosen language (in which individuation is treated like a theoretic construct instead of a valid instinctual drive) manages to indirectly expose the problem with Jungian individuation. Namely, how much is it an intellectual construct (that can become antiquated and commodified) and how much is it a biologically-driven instinctual force, a true "archetypal" necessity governing adaptation?
To look at this more deeply, we have to imagine our way into the analytic vessel where supposedly Jungian individuation is most commonly found. One of the primary questions that comes to mind (when examining the validity of individuation . . . and please pardon me for leaping ahead a few steps; I'll try to recover the missing steps below) is what is the demographic or clientèle for Jungian psychotherapy today? Are the majority (or at least a significant portion) of the analysands coming in for Jungian analysis today people who have no prior knowledge of Jungian psychology (or people who haven't gotten recommendations for a therapist through a Jungian or New Age grape vine)? Or is the demographic for Jungian analysands largely composed of people with some kind of prior Jungian or New Age belief system?
I am assuming the latter (after all, when I sought or considered psychotherapy in the past, I felt I only wanted to do analysis with a Jungian, someone I felt could "understand me" and not "shrink" me). Projections aside, there are a number of good reasons to suspect (and I have no data one way or another to confirm this) that the people most often attracted to Jungian therapy are people who respect or admire the Jungian belief system. For instance, the exaggerations of Richard Noll aside, Jungian psychology is especially insular, being both non-clinical (i.e. non-medical) and non-academic. Cultic, perhaps . . . but relatively insular, definitely. Has this Jungian insularity been self-perpetuating over the years since Jung began his practice? I.e., has it increasingly defined a particular demographic for its analysands? I suspect it has . . . and perhaps it has even done this to a dangerously exclusive degree, but I am not in a position to say.
Again leaving Noll's "hysteria" aside as overly extreme, we should honestly ask ourselves what is generally going on not only in the Jungian training institutes, but in the analyses of non-trainees, as well. What does the Jungian therapeutic method offer analysands? Why might one be attracted to or impressed by Jungian analysis? Is it really that Jungian analysis encourages "individuation"?
I don't think so (in general). The Jungians have (to put it crassly, but not, I think, inaccurately) a desirable product to sell: the valuation or re-spiritualization of the unconscious. The Jungian system does present us with what is essentially a "cure" for dissociation from our instincts (those "gods that have become diseases"). This cure will take if 1.) we believe in it (i.e., it is a faith cure), 2.) we are suffering from a dissociation from our instincts (most of us probably are), 3.) we don't have to change the way we live or behave radically in order to "reunite" with our instincts, and 4.) we don't need to or want to "individuate" substantially in order to heal (where "individuate" means differentiate ourselves radically from the collective and from our tribal affiliations and social identity roots).
I don't mean to skewer the Jungian method here. Certainly, it is not limited absolutely by these criteria, and there is no doubt that the aptitude of individual analysts and patients can transcend these limitations. My point is that, the Jungian analyst and analysand need not transcend these limitations in order to have a "successful analysis". Or, in other words, successful Jungian analysis need not by any means lead to or succeed by individuation in the analysand.
The analysand might find the revaluation (or increased valuation) of the unconscious to be sufficient motivation to "feel better". The valuation of the unconscious should not be sneezed at. It is an essential foundation to individuation (in my opinion). And as this valuation is awakened, numen rushes in to our beliefs. And much as Giegerich points out (critically), with this numinous valuation of the contents of the unconscious, we might feel our lives become more mythic and profound . . . our very thoughts become heroic and transcendent. But is this a state of being in which we are either 1.) truly living in the modern world, or 2.) benefiting the modern collective in any way? Giegerich and I both agree that it is not . . . and to imagine either of these things is so constitutes a terrible lie, an act of Bad Faith that is distinctly dishonorable.
Despite its cynicism, we need to staunchly consider that the indoctrination into the valuation (even the worship) of the unconscious and its numen is a process that awakens a new kind of consumerism in the Jungian analysand. That is, the indoctrinated Jungian is now not only a connoisseur and gourmet of Jungian analysis, but also ripe for the sampling of many spiritualities (that the New Age market generously stocks). Eastern philosophies, neo-Gnostic Christianities, Kundalini yoga, neoshamanism, tarot, astrology, quantum physics, and so on and so on. Each of these things becomes a sweet treat for the newly-valuated unconscious to nibble at. Although it is undeniable that Jungian analysis and indoctrination feeds this market, how, we must ask, does it prepare its inductees and analysands for the kind of discrimination required to differentiate what is "true" and truly enriching from what is mere confection and unhealthy distraction?
In general, it doesn't. Jungianism tends to advocate the all-candy diet of spiritualisms and mythic beliefs. And what we end up with is a subculture of Jungians that are the spiritual and intellectual equivalent of Morgan Spurlock (of
Supersize Me fame) on his all McDonald's diet. But many Jungian analysands "feel better", right, so isn't that good enough. Maybe, maybe not. Many people love and crave McDonald's hamburgers, even though that love may be driving them toward an early grave. I don't mean to say that all Jungian analysis is a sham. It isn't. But I think we should make a serious attempt to discern how much "satisfaction with the product" in Jungian analysis is the result of indoctrination, of awakening an appetite, or of introducing the analysand to his or her "new tribe" (i.e., worshipers of the numinous collective unconscious) . . . and how much is due to healing or resolution of destructive complexes and progressive, adaptive individuation.
It is no peculiarity that Alcoholics Anonymous and other support groups have found the (somewhat commodified) Jungian method functional. Religion or tribalistic belief systems can, no doubt, be substituted for other addictions and self-destructive patterns of behavior. Sometimes this is simply the best an individual can do, and if there is now an "addiction" to either the tribe/support group or to one of its favored dogmas, well, that's better than being dead or seriously endangering others. Indoctrination is a cure of sorts. It can restore valuation of collectivity (both within and without). Tribal Eros . . . and that's not something to cynically dismiss or look down upon.
The indoctrination method (of which I suggest Jungian analysis is frequently a highly sophisticated version of) is a tried and true method that can be genuine successful. But it is not in any way an "individuation". Very much the opposite, in fact. And this would mean that Jungian psychology is in radical conflict with itself, dissociative conflict, even. It draws its "raw material", its mass, from people seeking their True Tribe, people in need of a support system and a provident spiritual belief structure. And yet, its core mythos and theoretic framework is individuation. What I believe Giegerich is perceiving is that the largest part of the libido poured into Jungian psychology today is oriented toward tribalism, belief, support, reconnection with a group as a cure for the modern existential crisis or depression. And this energy is not very often compatible with the rigor (and often enough, terror) of genuine individuation.
Individuation, therefore, has become, for Jungians, a mere idea. And as an idea, Giegerich spots its antiquation . . .or its maladaptedness. It takes a genuine and adept puer to be able to spot and challenge such a stance, because the spirit of the puer is dissatisfied with conformity, indoctrination, tribalism. The puer is a romantic individualist . . . who falters not in too easily succumbing to normality and collectivity, but in an inability to relate to the group or live up to tribal initiation/indoctrination. The puer soars above this connectivity and belonging, perhaps even managing to gain a perspective on its artificiality. But this same puer also distances himself (or herself) from the instinctual drives for sociality and initiation. But any true individuant has to work through the puer cycle of transcendence and Fall. This is how initiation works, how individuation works.
With this thought, we should also question the attitude of Jungianism toward the puer. Puerism is much reviled by most Jungian writers (Hillman most notably withstanding). But the rejection or devaluation of puerism can be seen as ideally complimenting the "horizontal" preference for Jungian tribalism and indoctrination. The upward soaring of the puer is derided constantly among Jungians, but behind this derision is the dreadful fear of and taboo against the Fall of the puer (not to mention defense against hypocrisy). Jungians too infrequently understand the puer as a cycle of rising and falling. Instead they imagine the puer as defined primarily by "his" foolhardy ascent. But I can't help but look at this as suspiciously truncated. The Fall of the puer is (as the Jungians "know" from mythology) the beginning of consciousness, the beginning of the initiation into a true individuation. In a tribe that is primarily seeking support and belief and tribal cohesion, nothing is more terrifying than the descending puer . . . for in his Fall he has "failed the indoctrination", failed to belong to the tribe, failed to believe in the appropriate tribal dogmas and totems, failed to honor the tribal taboos, been exorcised from the tribal Eros, the participation mystique of belonging. He may not have yet "seen-through" the tribal belief system consciously, but he has Fallen through into the potential for such an insight. And that particular totem is what is most tabooed by the tribe.
We have to consider this along side what is probably the most common opinion of the Jungians from non-Jungian sectors (other tribes). The Jungians are generally seen as flighty, misty-eyed, romantics . . . perhaps even naive about the "dangers of the unconscious" (as Freud said to Jung: "the black tide of mud . . . of occultism"). Jung and the Jungians are generally credited with the catalyzing of the New Age, which despite its many fans, has clearly become a fertile market that can easily be targeted by lifestyle marketing campaigns. We could probably go further to say that the New Age market tends to be more gullible, less discriminating than many markets. The New Age resounds with hungers: some spiritual, some narcissistic. What I'm getting at is that the Jungians are not seen from the outside as especially mature and evolved wise old women and men . . . but for the puers that they truly are.
I believe it is part of the "condition of Jungianism" or the Jungian complex to hide from the puer Fall and initiation (into the individuation process) by putting on senex airs. The cult of the wise old man and woman, the mysticism only attainable in midlife . . . these are puer fantasies of what wisdom is supposed to be like. The conventional Jungian hostility for the ascending puer is, I feel, a shadow projection of a tribe that cannot recognize or accept its own ascending puer qualities. Whereas the fear of and glee at the Fall of puers is something only ascending puers really feel. "Initiated" people understand the puer cycle and respect it. The senex disguise of the Jungians is a facade, a defense against the recognition of their own soaring . . . and an excuse for why they don't embrace the Fall more. The attitude of many Jungians is that they are "beyond the Fall", past initiation and now contentedly basking in their wisdom and connectedness. But this constitutes an inflation, the kind of inflation that can only be maintained while in the midst of the puer ascent. I have written previously about the Jungian inflation as indicated in the conventional Jungian treatments of the animi work and the truncated interpretation of the
Rosarium Philosophorum, as well as in the very Christian conflation between the heroic ego and the Self . . . so I won't go into those details here (although I intend to organize and expand these things for my proposed book project).
In the Jungian tribe, tribal coherence is maintained by totemizing and abstracting ("antiquating") individuation (i.e., raising up the heroic ego to become an untouchable and worshiped god). By making individuation a mere idea and not a valid instinctual process, a thing of substance, the Jungian tribe member seeks to appease the angry individuation god with "good behavior" and various oblations (perhaps sometimes the sacrifice or scapegoating of real individuants or Fallen puers at the threshold of initiation?). And if that god can be sufficiently appeased with these rituals, the tribe is spared from the real burden of individuation.