n September the Asheville Jung Center has ambitious plans to host a conference titled “Symbols and Individuation in Global Politics”. In preparation, I’ve been reading Anyaten Sen’s “Identity and Violence”, Ortega y Gassett, and a panel discussion by Singer, Meador, and Samuels (Panel: The transcendent function in society) from the April 2010 issue of Journal of Analytical Psychology. It is a thought provoking article.
Let me begin with a question. Do Jungians and the field of Analytical Psychology have something unique to offer in the arena of politics, political science, and political discourse? Of course, Jungians are entitled, indeed obligated, to participate in the political process. But is there a Jungian perspective on these matters?
Singer, Meador, and Samuels examined the transcendent function and specifically explore the proposition that certain individuals (for example, President Obama) carry the transcendent function in ways that may promote resolution of cultural complexes. Such figures may help society unify apparent opposites.
The transcendent function is that psychological mechanism through which apparent opposites are unified. Jung compared the transcendent function to its mathematical equivalent:
“There is nothing mysterious or metaphysical about the term “transcendent function.” it means a psychological function comparable in it’s way to a mathematical function[1] of the same name, which is a function of real and imaginary numbers. The psychological “transcendent function” arises from the union of conscious and unconscious content.” (The Transcendent Function, Jung 1959)
Individuals tend to identify with one aspect of a polarity while relegating the other aspect to the unconscious. The transcendent function is at work when the individual reconciles such opposing elements in their psyche. There is a distinguished history of transcendent function within political theory. Hegel’s dialectical approach proposed a such a motor of history and politics that consisted of an endless clash of opposites resolved by a synthesis. His use of the word aufhebung, often translated as sublated, connotes abolished, preserved, and transcended in a single word. Hegel may have intended to ambiguate the idea. This is reminiscent of Jung’s characterization of symbol as “the best possible expression for a complex fact not yet clearly apprehended by consciousness.”
During the election cycle of 2008 there appeared to be a collective stirring of such dialectal tensions. There seemed to be opposing forces marshaling everywhere. There were rabid gun rights advocates who seemed to feel they were under siege and liberal activists who vilified the previous administration as a reign of terror worth of epic tales like “Lord of the Rings” or “Star Wars”. Countless other examples could be cited of seemingly deep rifts that were more evident during the 2008 election season. An unlikely figure, Barack Obama, emerged from this milieu and galvanized people across the political spectrum. Thomas Singer opined that President Obama “…has the potential to embody in his being a transcendent function that might point to real reconciliation and healing of the entrenched cultural complexes that divide Black and White communities in America… Some gifted individuals …actually carry the transcendent function for the group…” (Singer 2006, pp. 26-27)
There is little doubt that Barack Obama demonstrates the capacity to arouse strong passion. He resonates with people from different countries and cultures. People are drawn to him. Celebrity accounts for some of this allure. When President Obama visited Asheville earlier this year, even his ardent detractors were caught up in the excitement about sightings around town. His celebrity seemed to dampen the usual fiery discourse seeming to unify opposing parties. However, this should not be confused with reconciliation or the exercise of thetranscendent function.
There may something useful in considering leaders like President Obama as carriers of the transcendent function since this serves to remind us of the enormous value of transcending any opposites, whether intra-psychic or within the crucible of socio-cultural differences. But there are other reasons for caution.
Displacing individual psychological functions onto persons like Obama are a form of infantile wish fulfillment of the sort Freud exposed in “The Future of an Illusion”. Individuation is personal, as is the transcendent function that supports it. Extrapolating to the realm of politics imperils the individuation process. Psychological contents that we project, especially upon charismatic leaders like Obama, are robbed of some of their energy. This can reduce the chances that they will break through to consciousness. Cultural complexes are not exempt from such obfuscating maneuvers. The individual is summoned to use the transcendent function as a vehicle for perpetual growth and adaptation.
Logicians might object to the idea of leaders carrying the transcendent function because it reflects an error of logical type. A classic example of such an error may be helpful.
“This statement is false.”
(If the statement is true, it is false, and if it is false, then it is true, and so on.)
Such paradoxes are resolved by recognizing that the actual truth value of the statement is of a different logical type than the statement itself.
A similar disquiet emerges from the effort to extrapolate a function of the individual psyche (the transcendent function) to the sociopolitical arena. The truth and explanatory power of thetranscendent function when applied to the individual is different than when it is applied to thepolis. The two are of different logical types. (see Russell & Whitehead or Bateson).
Whether or not President Obama carries the transcendent function for cultural complexes he clearly activates psychological elements for individuals and for the masses. It is an intriguing idea to consider what role figures such as Obama play for society at large and individuals in their own political (& psychological) development
We are eager to generate discussion about the symbols and and other topics related to global politics as we approach the September conference. What do you think about the proposition that President Obama carries the transcendent function for various cultural complexes? We encourage you to share your thoughts concerning what (if anything) Jungians have to offer politics and political science.
Len Cruz, MD (first published at www.ashevillejungcenter.org/blog/ on July 11, 2010)
[1] For an infinite series a1 + a2 + a3 +⋯, a quantity sn = a1 + a2 +⋯+ an, which involves adding only the first n terms, is called a partial sum of the series. If sn approaches a fixed number S as n becomes larger and larger, the series is said to converge. In this case, S is called the sum of the series. An infinite series that does not converge is said to diverge. In the case of divergence, no value of a sum is assigned. An example of a convergent series is 1 + ½ + ¼ + ⅛ … that converges upon the solution 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment