Re: The Jung Cult: Origins of a Charismatic Movement
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:13 pm
Introduction
IN 1873 Ferdinand Tonnies read Friedrich Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy and came under its spell, reading it "almost with the feeling of a revelation." [1] In the years that followed, Tonnies secretly adopted Nietzsche, then a classical philologist teaching at Basel University in Switzerland, as his spiritus rector, his own private spiritual guru. It was only in Tonnies's imagination that he conversed with his genius, the imaginal Nietzsche: after traveling to the town where Nietzsche lived, Tonnies spied on him from afar but was too afraid to speak to him. Imaginary letters written time and time again to Nietzsche were never put to paper or sent. For Tonnies, Nietzsche had become too imbued with the qualities of divinity and hence too Olympian, too unreachable. [2]
During this period it may be said that Tonnies's hero worship of Nietzsche was his "personal religion." A personal religion, in this sense, is precisely what Thomas Carlyle defined in 1841 as the true essence of hero worship: the attribution of divinity to a living or legendary human by a mere mortal individual who did not (or did not yet) perceive the sacred spark of "genius" within his or her own personality. Such a "profane" individual, who may indeed have developed talent but may not have been born with "genius," may privately or socially enter into a "genius-cult" of hero worship and, by deed if not by word, place this personal religion above his or her nominal organized faith. Carlyle describes this best:
In 1897 Tonnies's now-forgotten book on the "Nietzsche Cult" appeared. [6] Der Nietzsche-Kultus: Eine Kritik was a sociological exposition on the inherent contradictions between the "liberation philosophy" of Nietzscheanism as proselytized by its cultists and the actual functions that Nietzschean ideas served. The doctrine of Nietzscheanism was seductive: it promised the release of creative powers of genius within the individual, the courage to freely express oneself and to reject authority and moral and social conventions. Through deeds one could truly be who one was, and perhaps even achieve symbolic immortality. Yet, part of this Nietzschean faith was also the exaltation of the mastery of the many by the few, a new nobility of the perpetually self-re-creating who would lead the way for the rest of the herd. Tonnies argued that rather than promote widespread liberation, Nietzschean ideas were being used instead to maintain conservative and especially elitist classes in society -- precisely those persons and values that Nietzschean cults claimed they were repudiating. For Nietzscheans, disaffection with the frustrating layers of bureaucratic authority and elitism in the governmental or religious hierarchies, did not apparently contradict a belief in the necessity of a noble elite. Indeed, Nietzscheans actively promoted the creation of such an elite, a vanguard that would transform the world with its "higher" values of community and truth. The alarming truth was that the Nietzschean could adopt these "truths" with little or no consciousness of their underlying elitist implications. Tonnies thus found these inherent contradictions between the professed beliefs and the actual behavior of the members of these Nietzschean groups potentially dangerous.
As historian Steven Aschheim astutely observes about the many "varieties of Nietzschean religion" that blossomed in Europe at the turn of the century, "Nietzscheanism was part creator and part beneficiary of a general erosion of traditional belief and dissatisfaction with the established church. For many this dissatisfaction, far from quenching the thirst for religion, gave it renewed impetus." [7]
It is indeed paradoxical that Western spirituality in the twentieth century has been so influenced -- indeed, awakened -- by a man who declared the death of God and who defined himself as the Antichrist. Yet, Nietzsche's "hammer" of questions has been taken up time and again in the modern age by spiritual seekers who felt their paths were blocked by the walls of convention and dogma, and who have felt compelled to initiate unconventional acts of personal salvation out of a yearning for new nectar to satiate a very old thirst.
When we survey the spiritual landscape of the Western world a century later we find that there is wide cultural interest in a movement that has its origins among these late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Nietzschean currents. This is the international movement centered on the transcendental ideas and the idealized personality of Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961), the Swiss psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and founder of the school of analytical psychology. Jung is best known today as Sigmund Freud's ungrateful disciple, breaking with his master in 1913 to go his own way and establish his own movement. The legend is additionally framed in the context of Jung's advocacy of the essential spiritual nature of human beings over the narrow, sexual view of Freud, who was by his own admission "a godless Jew." Those who read Jung and participate in the activities of the Jungian movement are often individuals seeking to increase their own sense of "spirituality."
Most persons who regard themselves as Jungians do not realize that Jung's ideas changed markedly over a number of years. For example, in late 1909 Jung first began to hypothesize that the unconscious mind had a deeper "phylogenetic" or racial layer beyond the memory store of personal experiences, and that it was from this essentially vitalistic biological residue that pre-Christian, pagan, mythological material emerged in dreams, fantasies, and especially psychotic states of mind. Jung's final theories, those of a transpersonal collective unconscious (1916) and its archetypes (1919), marked a transition away from an already tenuous congruence with the biological sciences of the twentieth century and instead returned to ideas popular during his grandfather's lifetime -- the age of Goethe.
By this time a metaphysical idea that was somewhat implicit in Jung's earlier thought became explicit: namely, that all matter -- animate and inanimate -- has a kind of "memory." Such ancient ideas, ironically, are what Jung is best known for introducing as modern innovations. Indeed these essentially transcendental concepts are so widely spread in our culture through their connections to psychotherapeutic practice, New Age spirituality, and neopaganism that they continue to be the subject of innumerable workshops, television shows, best-selling books, and video cassettes, and they form the basis of a brand of psychotherapy with its own trade name: Jungian analysis. [8]
Freud may still be the genius of choice for the learned elite of the late twentieth century, but it is clear that, in sheer numbers alone, it is Jung who has won the cultural war and whose works are more widely read and discussed in the popular culture of our age. There is no grassroots Freudian movement to match the size and scope of the international movement that has formed around the symbolic image of Jung. Freud's fall from grace as a revered cultural icon of modernity has been so serious that even Time magazine felt the need to take up Nietzsche's hammer and ask on the cover of its 29 November 1993 issue: "Is Freud Dead?"
When examined from a historical perspective, the contemporary phenomenon of Jungism presents numerous paradoxes. While its practitioners and theoreticians cite its legitimacy as a fruitful psychological theory and a profession of psychotherapy, the far greater numbers of participants in the movement who are not professionals are attracted by its "spirituality." Its caste of professional psychotherapists -- Jungian analysts -- profess the virtues of eclecticism, and yet claim the validity of a distinctive Jungian identity for their beliefs and techniques. As an institutionalized capitalist enterprise, it includes not only training institutes throughout the world (which parallels the Freudian system), but also hundreds of local psychology clubs (which have no Freudian parallel) that sponsor programs and workshops related to New Age spirituality and neopaganism. Even most Jungian analytic-training institutes, which emphasize their commitment to clinical training and a desire to maintain professional associations with the psychological and medical sciences, nonetheless have been known to offer practical classes or programs on astrology, the I Ching, palmistry, and other practices associated with the occult sciences.
Perhaps the most perplexing paradox of all is how to make sense of Jung himself, who was a noted experimental psychopathologist, psychiatrist, and psychoanalyst, within the contexts of the history of science and the history of psychiatry. Who, indeed, was C. G. Jung? At the present time a resilient cult of personality very much akin to Carlyle's hero worship is in evidence and occludes the historical Jung. Perplexingly, the phenomenon of Jungism has followed a somewhat different course than other cases of immortalization of physicians and scientists.
For example, the inventor of mediate auscultation and the stethoscope, Rene-Theophile-Hyacinthe Laennec, died in 1826 at the age of forty-five with little acknowledgment from his colleagues, but by 1870 he had been selected as the focus of institutional celebrations as an authentic hero of French medicine. Laennec's reputation as the greatest French physician of the nineteenth century was the product of collective negotiation and political maneuvering by prominent members within the French medical establishment, as historian George Weisz has shown. [9] Although less well documented, a similar inflation of medical reputation via collective negotiation for political and economic institutional motivations can be found in the case of Benjamin Rush (1745-1813), who was lionized by the American psychiatric community in the mid-nineteenth century. [10] In the cases of both Laennec and Rush, nationalism was an additional motivating force.
Even Freud has enjoyed an exalted place in the pantheon of medicine through the teaching of his ideas in psychiatric training programs in American medical schools since the 1920s, due in no small part to the early conversion of William Alanson White (1870-1937) to Freudian theory. White (and several other Freudians) played a key role in formalizing medical training in psychiatry in the United States. Until very recently the oldest and most "official" Freudian psychoanalytic association in North America allowed only American physicians who were graduates of approved medical schools to train as psychoanalysts. Thus through the imprimatur of such respected institutional affiliations -- and the writing of histories of psychiatry by graduates of such institutions -- Freud's reputation in medical and scientific history loomed large throughout most of the twentieth century, as the center of scientific and medical education gradually shifted from Germany, England, and France to the United States after the First, and certainly by the end of the Second, World War. [11]
In all of the above cases immortality was institutionally conferred and assured by established medical and scientific disciplinary communities. No such mechanism is at the root of Jungism, for Jung and his theories have remained well outside the established institutional worlds of science and medicine, as they have been regarded, with justification, as inconsistent with the greater scientific paradigms of the twentieth century. Additionally, Jung's theories have never received significant attention in the disciplines of academic psychology. Indeed, although a few lines on Jung are often included in most introductory American psychology textbooks, and many such textbooks for "theories of personality" classes contain a full section or a chapter on Jung, the discussion of Jung is invariably less extensive and usually follows in sequence the much more fully articulated ideas and biography of Freud. Something else must account for the widespread popularity of Jung, but what?
Perhaps we can begin to answer this question when we examine the curious relationship between theory and history in the literature on Jung, and by extension, the role of this relationship in the sociological phenomenon of Jungism. The relationship of history and theory in the historiography of the psychological sciences has become a focus of considerable debate in recent years.[12] Not counting his relatively brief period of significant Freudian influence (1906-1912), Jung may be characterized by his combination of six separate but interconnected theories:
1. the complex theory (circa 1902)
2. the theory of psychological types (1913, 1921)
3. the vitalistic theory of a primarily biologically based phylogenetic unconscious (1909, but revised after 1916)
4. the theory of the collective unconscious (1916)
5. the theory of dominants (1917) or archetypes (1919) of the collective unconscious
6. the principle of individuation (1916).
The remainder of this volume is devoted to an exposition of the relationship between the latter four of these Jungian theories and history.
Whereas the psychological objects of Jungism (especially Jung's theories of the collective unconscious and its archetypes) are widely known, their historical origins and their current use "not only ... by but also for and about people with particular interests and preferences," as Kurt Danzinger expresses it, needs to be clarified. I would indeed argue along with Danzinger that, furthermore, "only when we understand something of this historical embeddedness of specific psychological objects and practices are we in a position to formulate intelligent questions about their possible historical transcendence." [13]
IN 1873 Ferdinand Tonnies read Friedrich Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy and came under its spell, reading it "almost with the feeling of a revelation." [1] In the years that followed, Tonnies secretly adopted Nietzsche, then a classical philologist teaching at Basel University in Switzerland, as his spiritus rector, his own private spiritual guru. It was only in Tonnies's imagination that he conversed with his genius, the imaginal Nietzsche: after traveling to the town where Nietzsche lived, Tonnies spied on him from afar but was too afraid to speak to him. Imaginary letters written time and time again to Nietzsche were never put to paper or sent. For Tonnies, Nietzsche had become too imbued with the qualities of divinity and hence too Olympian, too unreachable. [2]
During this period it may be said that Tonnies's hero worship of Nietzsche was his "personal religion." A personal religion, in this sense, is precisely what Thomas Carlyle defined in 1841 as the true essence of hero worship: the attribution of divinity to a living or legendary human by a mere mortal individual who did not (or did not yet) perceive the sacred spark of "genius" within his or her own personality. Such a "profane" individual, who may indeed have developed talent but may not have been born with "genius," may privately or socially enter into a "genius-cult" of hero worship and, by deed if not by word, place this personal religion above his or her nominal organized faith. Carlyle describes this best:
Yet, as the intent and style of Nietzsche's works changed, so did Tonnies's faith in him. The Nietzsche of The Birth of Tragedy (1872) was not the Nietzsche of Also Sprach Zarathustra (1892). [4] Gone was the Apollonian cultural idealist, the lover of the Dionysian in the musical tragedy of Wagner. Nietzsche was Dionysus, the pagan god of irrationality, the "loosener," the "breaker of bonds," the catalyst of reversals, the seducer through sudden cacophonies and equally sudden silences, the iconoclast who could proclaim the death of the Judea-Christian god and dare to overthrow even his own beloved "Divine Hero," Richard Wagner: this was the image of Nietzsche as Dionysian Hero adopted by individuals and groups seeking Lebensreform ("life-reform"), whether spiritual or political. The rediscovery of Nietzsche's works after he went mad in 1889 and the subsequent appearance of his later, more daring works throughout the 1890s and early 1900s ignited the flames of cultism. [5] Tonnies, while still very much admiring the Nietzsche of a generation earlier, would have no part of this.It is well said, in every sense, that a man's religion is the chief fact with regard to him. A man's, or a nation of men's. By religion I do not mean here the church-creed which he professes, the articles of faith which he will sign and, in words or otherwise, assert; not this wholly, in many cases not this at all. We see men of all kinds of professed creeds attain to almost all degrees of worth or worthlessness under each or any of them. This is not what I call religion, this profession and assertion; which is often only a profession and an assertion from the outworks of the man, from the mere argumentative region of him, if even so deep as that. But the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. This is his religion; or, it may be, his mere skepticism and no-religion; the manner it is in which he feels himself to be spiritually related to the Unseen World or No-world; and I say, if you tell me what that is, you tell me to a very great extent what the man is, what the things he will do is. [3]
In 1897 Tonnies's now-forgotten book on the "Nietzsche Cult" appeared. [6] Der Nietzsche-Kultus: Eine Kritik was a sociological exposition on the inherent contradictions between the "liberation philosophy" of Nietzscheanism as proselytized by its cultists and the actual functions that Nietzschean ideas served. The doctrine of Nietzscheanism was seductive: it promised the release of creative powers of genius within the individual, the courage to freely express oneself and to reject authority and moral and social conventions. Through deeds one could truly be who one was, and perhaps even achieve symbolic immortality. Yet, part of this Nietzschean faith was also the exaltation of the mastery of the many by the few, a new nobility of the perpetually self-re-creating who would lead the way for the rest of the herd. Tonnies argued that rather than promote widespread liberation, Nietzschean ideas were being used instead to maintain conservative and especially elitist classes in society -- precisely those persons and values that Nietzschean cults claimed they were repudiating. For Nietzscheans, disaffection with the frustrating layers of bureaucratic authority and elitism in the governmental or religious hierarchies, did not apparently contradict a belief in the necessity of a noble elite. Indeed, Nietzscheans actively promoted the creation of such an elite, a vanguard that would transform the world with its "higher" values of community and truth. The alarming truth was that the Nietzschean could adopt these "truths" with little or no consciousness of their underlying elitist implications. Tonnies thus found these inherent contradictions between the professed beliefs and the actual behavior of the members of these Nietzschean groups potentially dangerous.
As historian Steven Aschheim astutely observes about the many "varieties of Nietzschean religion" that blossomed in Europe at the turn of the century, "Nietzscheanism was part creator and part beneficiary of a general erosion of traditional belief and dissatisfaction with the established church. For many this dissatisfaction, far from quenching the thirst for religion, gave it renewed impetus." [7]
It is indeed paradoxical that Western spirituality in the twentieth century has been so influenced -- indeed, awakened -- by a man who declared the death of God and who defined himself as the Antichrist. Yet, Nietzsche's "hammer" of questions has been taken up time and again in the modern age by spiritual seekers who felt their paths were blocked by the walls of convention and dogma, and who have felt compelled to initiate unconventional acts of personal salvation out of a yearning for new nectar to satiate a very old thirst.
When we survey the spiritual landscape of the Western world a century later we find that there is wide cultural interest in a movement that has its origins among these late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Nietzschean currents. This is the international movement centered on the transcendental ideas and the idealized personality of Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961), the Swiss psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and founder of the school of analytical psychology. Jung is best known today as Sigmund Freud's ungrateful disciple, breaking with his master in 1913 to go his own way and establish his own movement. The legend is additionally framed in the context of Jung's advocacy of the essential spiritual nature of human beings over the narrow, sexual view of Freud, who was by his own admission "a godless Jew." Those who read Jung and participate in the activities of the Jungian movement are often individuals seeking to increase their own sense of "spirituality."
Most persons who regard themselves as Jungians do not realize that Jung's ideas changed markedly over a number of years. For example, in late 1909 Jung first began to hypothesize that the unconscious mind had a deeper "phylogenetic" or racial layer beyond the memory store of personal experiences, and that it was from this essentially vitalistic biological residue that pre-Christian, pagan, mythological material emerged in dreams, fantasies, and especially psychotic states of mind. Jung's final theories, those of a transpersonal collective unconscious (1916) and its archetypes (1919), marked a transition away from an already tenuous congruence with the biological sciences of the twentieth century and instead returned to ideas popular during his grandfather's lifetime -- the age of Goethe.
By this time a metaphysical idea that was somewhat implicit in Jung's earlier thought became explicit: namely, that all matter -- animate and inanimate -- has a kind of "memory." Such ancient ideas, ironically, are what Jung is best known for introducing as modern innovations. Indeed these essentially transcendental concepts are so widely spread in our culture through their connections to psychotherapeutic practice, New Age spirituality, and neopaganism that they continue to be the subject of innumerable workshops, television shows, best-selling books, and video cassettes, and they form the basis of a brand of psychotherapy with its own trade name: Jungian analysis. [8]
Freud may still be the genius of choice for the learned elite of the late twentieth century, but it is clear that, in sheer numbers alone, it is Jung who has won the cultural war and whose works are more widely read and discussed in the popular culture of our age. There is no grassroots Freudian movement to match the size and scope of the international movement that has formed around the symbolic image of Jung. Freud's fall from grace as a revered cultural icon of modernity has been so serious that even Time magazine felt the need to take up Nietzsche's hammer and ask on the cover of its 29 November 1993 issue: "Is Freud Dead?"
When examined from a historical perspective, the contemporary phenomenon of Jungism presents numerous paradoxes. While its practitioners and theoreticians cite its legitimacy as a fruitful psychological theory and a profession of psychotherapy, the far greater numbers of participants in the movement who are not professionals are attracted by its "spirituality." Its caste of professional psychotherapists -- Jungian analysts -- profess the virtues of eclecticism, and yet claim the validity of a distinctive Jungian identity for their beliefs and techniques. As an institutionalized capitalist enterprise, it includes not only training institutes throughout the world (which parallels the Freudian system), but also hundreds of local psychology clubs (which have no Freudian parallel) that sponsor programs and workshops related to New Age spirituality and neopaganism. Even most Jungian analytic-training institutes, which emphasize their commitment to clinical training and a desire to maintain professional associations with the psychological and medical sciences, nonetheless have been known to offer practical classes or programs on astrology, the I Ching, palmistry, and other practices associated with the occult sciences.
Perhaps the most perplexing paradox of all is how to make sense of Jung himself, who was a noted experimental psychopathologist, psychiatrist, and psychoanalyst, within the contexts of the history of science and the history of psychiatry. Who, indeed, was C. G. Jung? At the present time a resilient cult of personality very much akin to Carlyle's hero worship is in evidence and occludes the historical Jung. Perplexingly, the phenomenon of Jungism has followed a somewhat different course than other cases of immortalization of physicians and scientists.
For example, the inventor of mediate auscultation and the stethoscope, Rene-Theophile-Hyacinthe Laennec, died in 1826 at the age of forty-five with little acknowledgment from his colleagues, but by 1870 he had been selected as the focus of institutional celebrations as an authentic hero of French medicine. Laennec's reputation as the greatest French physician of the nineteenth century was the product of collective negotiation and political maneuvering by prominent members within the French medical establishment, as historian George Weisz has shown. [9] Although less well documented, a similar inflation of medical reputation via collective negotiation for political and economic institutional motivations can be found in the case of Benjamin Rush (1745-1813), who was lionized by the American psychiatric community in the mid-nineteenth century. [10] In the cases of both Laennec and Rush, nationalism was an additional motivating force.
Even Freud has enjoyed an exalted place in the pantheon of medicine through the teaching of his ideas in psychiatric training programs in American medical schools since the 1920s, due in no small part to the early conversion of William Alanson White (1870-1937) to Freudian theory. White (and several other Freudians) played a key role in formalizing medical training in psychiatry in the United States. Until very recently the oldest and most "official" Freudian psychoanalytic association in North America allowed only American physicians who were graduates of approved medical schools to train as psychoanalysts. Thus through the imprimatur of such respected institutional affiliations -- and the writing of histories of psychiatry by graduates of such institutions -- Freud's reputation in medical and scientific history loomed large throughout most of the twentieth century, as the center of scientific and medical education gradually shifted from Germany, England, and France to the United States after the First, and certainly by the end of the Second, World War. [11]
In all of the above cases immortality was institutionally conferred and assured by established medical and scientific disciplinary communities. No such mechanism is at the root of Jungism, for Jung and his theories have remained well outside the established institutional worlds of science and medicine, as they have been regarded, with justification, as inconsistent with the greater scientific paradigms of the twentieth century. Additionally, Jung's theories have never received significant attention in the disciplines of academic psychology. Indeed, although a few lines on Jung are often included in most introductory American psychology textbooks, and many such textbooks for "theories of personality" classes contain a full section or a chapter on Jung, the discussion of Jung is invariably less extensive and usually follows in sequence the much more fully articulated ideas and biography of Freud. Something else must account for the widespread popularity of Jung, but what?
Perhaps we can begin to answer this question when we examine the curious relationship between theory and history in the literature on Jung, and by extension, the role of this relationship in the sociological phenomenon of Jungism. The relationship of history and theory in the historiography of the psychological sciences has become a focus of considerable debate in recent years.[12] Not counting his relatively brief period of significant Freudian influence (1906-1912), Jung may be characterized by his combination of six separate but interconnected theories:
1. the complex theory (circa 1902)
2. the theory of psychological types (1913, 1921)
3. the vitalistic theory of a primarily biologically based phylogenetic unconscious (1909, but revised after 1916)
4. the theory of the collective unconscious (1916)
5. the theory of dominants (1917) or archetypes (1919) of the collective unconscious
6. the principle of individuation (1916).
The remainder of this volume is devoted to an exposition of the relationship between the latter four of these Jungian theories and history.
Whereas the psychological objects of Jungism (especially Jung's theories of the collective unconscious and its archetypes) are widely known, their historical origins and their current use "not only ... by but also for and about people with particular interests and preferences," as Kurt Danzinger expresses it, needs to be clarified. I would indeed argue along with Danzinger that, furthermore, "only when we understand something of this historical embeddedness of specific psychological objects and practices are we in a position to formulate intelligent questions about their possible historical transcendence." [13]


