Extraversion means an outward-turning of the libido (q.v.). With this concept I denote a manifest relatedness of subject to object in the sense of a positive movement of subjective interest towards the object. Everyone in the state of extraversion thinks, feels, and acts in relation to the object, and moreover in a direct and clearly observable fashion, so that no doubt can exist about his positive dependence upon the object In a sense, therefore, extraversion is an outgoing transference of interest from the subject to the object. If it is an intellectual extraversion, the subject thinks himself into the object; if a feeling extraversion, then the subject feels himself into the object. The state of extraversion means a strong, if not exclusive, determination by the object. One should speak of an active extraversion when deliberately willed, and of a passive extraversion when the object compels it, i.e. attracts the interest of the subject of its own accord, even against the tatter’s intention. Should the state of extraversion become habitual, the extroverted type (v. Type) appears.

 

 

Feeling (Fuhlen): I count feeling among the four basic psychological functions. I am unable to support the psychological school that regards feeling as a secondary phenomenon dependent upon “presentations” or sensations, but in company with Hoffding, Wundt, Lehmann, Kulpe, Baldwin, and others, I regard it as an independent function sui generis. 

 

Feeling is primarily a process that takes place between the ego and a given content, a process, moreover, that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection (‘Like or Dislike’); but it can also appear, as it were, isolated in the form of ‘mood‘, quite apart from the momentary contents of consciousness or momentary sensations. This latter process may be causally related to previous conscious contents, though not necessarily so, since, as psychopathology abundantly proves, it can take origin equally well from unconscious contents. But even the mood, whether it be regarded as a general or only a partial feeling, signifies a valuation; not, however, a valuation of one definite, individual, conscious content, but of the whole conscious situation at the moment, and, once again, with special reference to the question of acceptance or rejection.

 

Feeling, therefore, is an entirely subjective process, which may be in every respect independent of external stimuli, although chiming in with every sensation. Even an ‘indifferent’ sensation possesses a ‘feeling tone‘, namely, that of indifference, which again expresses a certain valuation. Hence feeling is also a kind of judging, differing, however, from an intellectual judgment, in that it does not aim at establishing an intellectual connection but is solely concerned with the setting up of a subjective criterion of acceptance or rejection. The valuation by feeling extends to every content of consciousness, of whatever kind it may be. When the intensity of feeling is increased an affect (v. Affect) results, which is a state of feeling accompanied by appreciable bodily innervations. Feeling is distinguished from affect by the fact that it gives rise to no perceptible physical innervations, i.e. just as much or as little as the ordinary thinking process.

 

Ordinary ‘simple‘ feeling is concrete (q.v.), i.e. it is mixed up with other function-elements, frequently with sensation for instance. In this particular case we might term it affective, or (as in this book, for instance) feeling-sensation, by which a well-nigh inseparable blending of feeling with sensation elements is to be understood. This characteristic fusion is universally present where feeling is still an undifferentiated function, hence most evidently in the psyche of a neurotic with a differentiated thinking.

 

Although feeling is an independent function in itself, it may lapse into a state of dependence upon another function, upon thinking, for instance; whereby a feeling is produced which is merely kept as an accompaniment to thinking, and is not repressed from consciousness only in so far as it fits in with the intellectual associations.

 

It is important to distinguish abstract feeling from ordinary concrete feeling. For, just as the abstract concept (v. Thinking) does away with the differences of the things embraced in it, so abstract feeling, by being raised above the differences of the individual feeling-values, establishes a ‘mood‘, or state of feeling, which embraces and therewith abolishes the different individual values. Thus, just as thinking marshals the conscious contents under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value. The more concrete the feeling, the more subjective and personal the value it confers; but the more abstract it is, the more general and objective is the value it bestows. Just as a completely abstract concept no longer coincides with the individuality and peculiarity of things, only revealing their universality and indistinctness, so too the completely abstract feeling no longer coincides with the individual instant and its feeling quality but only with the totality of all instants and their indistinctness. Accordingly, feeling like thinking is a rational function, since, as is shown by experience, values in general are bestowed according to the laws of reason, just as concepts in general are framed after the laws of reason.

 

Naturally the essence of feeling is not characterized by the foregoing definitions: they only serve to convey its external manifestations. The conceptual capacity of the intellect proves incapable of formulating the real nature of feeling in abstract terms, since thinking belongs to a category quite incommensurable with feeling. In fact, no basic psychological function whatsoever can be completely expressed by any other one. This circumstance is responsible for the fact that no intellectual definition will ever be able to render the specific character of feeling in any adequate measure. The mere fact that feelings are classified adds nothing to the understanding of their nature, because even the most exact classification will be able to yield only that intellectually seizable content to which or with which feelings appear connected, but without thereby apprehending the specific nature of feeling. Thus, however many varying and intellectually seizable classes of contents there may be, just as many feelings can be differentiated, without ever arriving at an exhaustive classification of feelings themselves; because, beyond every possible class of contents accessible to the intellect, there still exist feelings which are beyond intellectual classification. The very idea of a classification is intellectual and therefore incommensurable with the nature of feeling. Hence, we must content ourselves with our attempts to define the limits of the concept.

 

The nature of a feeling-valuation may be compared with intellectual apperception as an apperception of value. An active and a passive feeling-apperception can be distinguished. The passive feeling-act is characterized by the fact that a content excites or attracts the feeling; it compels a feeling-participation on the part of the subject The active feeling-act, on the contrary, confers value from the subject it is a deliberate evaluation of contents in accordance with feeling and not in accordance with intellectual intention. Hence active feeling is a directed function, an act of will, as for instance loving as opposed to being in love. This latter state would be undirected, passive feeling, as, indeed, the ordinary colloquial term suggests, since it describes the former as activity and the latter as a condition. Undirected feeling is feeling-intuition. Thus, in the stricter sense, only the active, directed feeling should be termed rational: the passive is definitely irrational, since it establishes values without voluntary participation, occasionally even against the subject’s intention.

 

When the total attitude of the individual is orientated by the function of feeling, we speak of a feeling-type (v. Type).

 

 

Feeling-into (Einfiihlung) is an introjection (q.v.) of the object into the ego. 

 

 

Function: By psychological function I understand a certain form of psychic activity that remains theoretically the same under varying circumstances. From the energic standpoint a function is a phenomenal form of libido (q.v.) which theoretically remains constant, in much the same way as physical force can be considered as the form or momentary manifestation of physical energy. I distinguish four basic functions in all, two rational and two irrational viz. thinking and feeling, sensation and intuition. 1 can give no a priori reason for selecting just these four as basic functions; I can only point to the fact that this conception has shaped itself out of many years’ experience.

 

I differentiate these functions from one another, because they are neither mutually relatable nor mutually reducible. The principle of thinking, for instance, is absolutely different from the principle of feeling, and so forth. I make a capital distinction between this concept of function and phantasy-activity, or reverie, because, to my mind, phantasying is a peculiar form of activity which can manifest itself in all the four functions.

 

In my view, both will and attention are entirely secondary psychic phenomena.

 

 

Idea: In this work the concept of idea is sometimes used to designate a certain psychological element intimately connected with what I term image (q.v.). The image may be either personal or impersonal in its origin. In the latter case, it is collective and is distinguished by mythological qualities. I then term it primordial image. When, on the contrary, it has no mythological character, i.e. lacks the intuitive qualities and is merely collective, I speak of an idea. Accordingly I employ the term idea as something which expresses the meaning of a primordial image that has been abstracted or detached from the concretism of the image. In so far as the idea is an abstraction, it has the appearance of something derived, or developed, from elementary factors, a product of thinking. This is the sense, as something secondary and derived, in which it is regarded by Wundt and many others. Since, however, the idea is merely the formulated meaning of a primordial image in which it was already symbolically represented, the essence of the idea is not merely derived, or produced, but, considered psychologically, it has an a priori existence as a given possibility of thought-connections in general. Hence, in accordance with its nature (not with its formulation), the idea is an a priori existing and determining psychological factor. In this sense Plato sees the idea as a primordial image of things, while Kant defines it as the ”archetype of the use of the mind”; hence it is a transcendent concept which, as such, transcends the limit of experienceable things. It is a concept demanded by reason, “whose object can never be met with in experience”. Kant says:

”For, although we axe bound to say of transcendent reasonal concepts They are only ideas, yet are we in no way justified in regarding them as superfluous and unreal. For, although no object can be determined by them, nevertheless fundamentally and unperceived they can serve the mind as canons for its extended and harmonious use, whereby it discerns no object more acutely than it would according to its own concepts, yet is guided in this discernment in a better and broader approach. Not to mention the fact that they may, perhaps, bring about a transition from natural ideas to practical concepts, even providing moral ideas with a certain associative texture of the speculative findings of reason“.

 

Schopenhauer says :

”By idea I understand every definite and established grade of the objectification of will, in so far as it is a thing-in-itself and, therefore, removed from multiplicity; such grades, moreover, are related to individual things as their eternal forms or prototypes“.

 

With Schopenhauer, however, the idea is plastic in character, because he conceives it wholly in the sense of what I describe as primordial image; it is, however, indiscernible to the individual, revealing itself only to the “pure Subject of cognition “, which is raised above will and individuality

 

Hegel completely hypostasizes the idea, and gives it the attribute of the only real existence. It is ”the concept, the reality of the concept and the oneness of both“. It is ”eternal generation“.

Lasswitz regards the idea as a “law indicating the direction, in which our experience should develop”. It is the ”most certain and supreme reality“.

With Cohen, the idea is the ”self-consciousness of the concept “, the ”foundation” of being.

 

I do not wish to multiply further evidence to establish the primary nature of the idea. These quotations should sufficiently demonstrate that the idea is conceived also as a fundamental, a priori existent factor. It possesses this latter quality from its antecedent, the ’primordial, symbolical image (q.v.). Its secondary nature of an abstract and derived entity it receives from the rational elaboration to which the primordial image is subjected before it is made suitable for rational usage. Inasmuch as the primordial image is a constant autochthonic psychological factor repeating itself in all times and places, we might also, in a certain sense, say the same of the idea, although, on account of its rational nature, it is much more subject to modification by rational elaboration, which in its turn is strongly influenced by time and circumstance. It is this rational elaboration which gives it formulations corresponding with the spirit of the time. A few philosophers, by virtue of its derivation from the primordial image, ascribe a transcendent quality to it; this does not really belong to the idea as I conceive it, but rather to the primordial image, about which a timeless quality clings, established as it is from all time as an integral and inherent constituent of the human mind. Its quality of independence is derived also from the primordial image which was never made and is constantly present, appearing so spontaneously in perception that we might also say it strives independently towards its own realization, since it is sensed by the mind as an actively determining power. Such a view, however, is not general, but presumably a question of attitude. The idea is a psychological factor which not only determines thought but, in the form of a practical idea, also conditions feeling. As a general rule, however, I only employ the term idea, either when I am speaking of the determination of thought in a thinking-type, or when denoting the determination of feeling in a feeling-type. On the other hand, it is terminologically correct to speak of determination by the primordial image, when we are dealing with an a priori determination of an undifferentiated function.

 

The dual nature of the idea, as something that is at the same time both primary and secondary, is responsible for the fact that the expression is occasionally used promiscuously with 'primordial' image. For the introverted attitude the idea is the priinum movens; for the extraverted, it is a product.

 

 

Identification: This term connotes a psychological process in which the personality is either partially or totally dissimilated (v. Assimilation) from itself. Identification is an estrangement of the subject from himself in favour of an object in which the subject is, to a certain extent, disguised. For example, identification with the father practically signifies an adoption of the ways and manners of the father, as though the son were the same as the father and not a separate individual. Identification is distinguished from imitation by the fact that identification is an unconscious imitation, whereas imitation is a conscious copying.

 

Imitation is an indispensable expedient for the developing personality of youth. It has a beneficial effect so long as it does not merely serve as a means of accommodation, thus hindering the development of a suitable individual method. Similarly, identification may be progressive in so far as the individual way is not yet available. But, whenever a better individual possibility presents itself, identification manifests its pathological character by proving henceforth just as great a hindrance as before it was unwittingly supporting and beneficial. For now it has a dissociating influence, dividing the subject into two mutually estranged personalities. Identification is not always related to persons but also to things (for instance, a spiritual movement, or a business, etc.) and to psychological functions. In fact, the latter case is particularly important. Identification, in such a case, leads to the formation of a secondary character, whereby the individual is so identified with his most developed function that he is very largely or even wholly removed from his original character-foundation, so that his real individuality goes into the unconscious. This is nearly always the rule with men who possess one differentiated function. It is, in fact, a necessary transitional stage on the way to individuation.

 

Identification with the parents or nearest members of the family is a normal phenomenon, in so far as it coincides with the a priori or pre-existing familial identity. In such a case, it is better not to speak of identification but of identity, a term which corresponds with the actual matter of fact. For identification with members of the family is to be distinguished from identity by the fact, that it is not given as an a priori fact, but arises secondarily only through the following process: as the individual is developing out of the original familial identity, his process of adaptation and development brings him upon an obstacle which cannot immediately be mastered; a damming-up of libido, accordingly, takes place and gradually seeks a regressive outlet The regression brings about a revivification of earlier states, among others the state of familial identity. The identification with the members of the family corresponds with this regressive revival of a state of identity which has actually almost been overcome. Every identification with persons takes place in this way. Identification has always a purpose, namely, to obtain an advantage, push aside an obstacle, or solve a task after the manner of another individual.

 

 

Identity: I use the term identity in the case of a psychological equality. It is always an unconscious phenomenon, since a conscious equality would necessarily involve the consciousness of two similar things hence immediately presupposing a separation of subject and object, whereby the phenomenon of identity would be already resolved. Psychological identity presupposes its unconsciousness. It is a characteristic of the primitive mentality, and is the actual basis of ”participation mystique”, which, in reality, is merely a relic of the original psychological non-differentiation of subject and object hence of the primordial unconscious state. It is, therefore, a characteristic of the early infantile mental condition. Finally, it is also a characteristic of the unconscious content in adult civilized man, which, in so far as it has not become a conscious content, remains permanently in the state of identity with objects. From an identity with the parents proceeds the identification (q.v.) with them; similarly, the possibility of projection and introjection (q.v.) depends upon identity. Identity is primarily an unconscious equality with the object. It is neither an assumption of equality nor an identification, but an a priori equality which has never appeared as an object of consciousness. Upon identity is founded the naive presumption that the psychology of one man is the same as that of another, that the same motive is universally valid, that what is agreeable to me must also be obviously pleasurable for others, and that what is immoral to me must also be immoral for others, and so forth. This state of identity is responsible also for the almost universal desire to correct in others what most demands change in oneself. Upon identity rests the possibility of suggestion and psychic contamination. Identity appears with special distinctness in pathological cases, as for instance in paranoia delusions of ‘influencing‘ and persecution, where the patient’s own subjective contents are presumed, as a matter of course, to proceed from others. But identity means also the possibility of a conscious collectivism and a conscious social attitude, which found their loftiest expression in the Christian ideal of brotherly love.

 

 

Image: When I speak of image in this book, I do not mean the psychic reflection of the external object, but a concept essentially derived from a poetic figure of speech; namely, the phantasy-image, a presentation which is only indirectly related to the perception of the external object This image depends much more upon unconscious phantasy-activity, and as the product of such activity it appears more or less abruptly in consciousness, somewhat in the nature of a vision or hallucination but without possessing the pathological character of similar products occurring in a morbid clinical picture. The image has the psychological character of a phantasy-presentation, and never the quasi-real character of hallucination, i.e. it never takes the place of reality, and its character of ‘inner’ image always distinguishes it from sensuous reality. As a rule, it lacks all projection into space, although in exceptional cases it can also appear to a certain extent externalized.

 

Such a mode of appearance must be termed archaic (q.v.) when it is not primarily pathological, though in no way does this do away with its archaic character. Upon the primitive level, i.e. in the mentality of the primitives, the inner image is easily projected into space as a visual or auditory hallucination without being a pathological phenomenon.

 

Although, as a rule, no reality-value belongs to the image, its significance for the psychic life is often thereby enhanced, a greater psychological value clings to it, representing an inner 'reality' which occasionally far outweighs the physical importance of 'external' reality. In such a case, the orientation of the individual is concerned less with adaptation to reality than with an adaptation to the inner claims.

 

The inner image is a complex factor, compounded of the most varied material from the most varied sources

 

It is no conglomerate, however, but an integral product, with its own autonomous purpose. The image is a concentrated expression of the total psychic situation, not merely, nor even pre-eminently, of unconscious contents pure and simple. It undoubtedly does express the contents of the unconscious, though not the whole of its contents in general, but merely those momentarily constellated. This constellation is the product of the specific activity of the unconscious on the one hand, and of the momentary conscious situation on the other: this always stimulates the activity of associated subliminal material at the same time as it also inhibits the irrelevant. Accordingly the image is equally an expression of the unconscious as of the conscious situation of the moment. The interpretation of its meaning, therefore, can proceed exclusively neither from the unconscious nor from the conscious, but only from their reciprocal relation.

 

I term the image primordial when it possesses an archaic character. I speak of its archaic character when the image is in striking unison with familiar mythological motives. In this case it expresses material primarily derived from the collective unconscious (g.v.) while, at the same time, it indicates that the momentary conscious situation is influenced not so much from the side of the personal as from the collective.

 

A personal image has neither archaic character nor collective significance, but expresses contents of the personal unconscious and a personally conditioned, conscious situation.

 

The primordial image (elsewhere also termed the ‘archetype‘) is always collective, i.e. it is at least common to entire nations or epochs. In all probability the most important mythological motives are common to all times and races; I have, in fact, demonstrated a whole series of motives from Grecian mythology in the dreams and phantasies of thoroughbred negroes suffering from mental disorders.

 

The primordial image is a mnemic deposit, an imprint (“engramm” Semon), which has arisen through a condensation of innumerable, similar processes. It is primarily a precipitate or deposit, and therefore a typical basic form of a certain ever-recurring psychic experience. As a mythological motive, therefore, it is a constantly effective and continually recurring expression which is either awakened, or appropriately formulated, by certain psychic experiences. The primordial image, then, is the psychic expression of an anatomically and physiologically determined disposition. If one supports the view that a definite anatomical structure is the product of environmental conditions upon living matter, the primordial image in its constant and universal distribution corresponds with an equally universal and continuous external influence, which must, therefore, have the character of a natural law. In this way, the myth could be related to Nature (as, for instance, the solar myths to the daily rising and setting of the sun, or to the equally obvious seasonal changes). But we should still be left with the question as to why the sun, for instance, with its obvious changes, should not appear frank and unveiled as a content of the myth. The fact that the sun, or the moon, or meteorological processes do, at least, appear allegorized, points, however, to an independent collaboration of the psyche, which in this case can be no mere product or imitation of environmental conditions. Then whence this capacity of the psyche to gain a standpoint outside sense-perception?

 

Whence its capacity for achieving something beyond or different from the verdict of the senses? We are forced to assume, therefore, that the given brain-structure does not owe its particular nature merely to the effect of surrounding conditions, but also and just as much to the peculiar and autonomous quality of living matter, it. to a fundamental law of life. The given constitution of the organism, therefore, is on the one hand a product of outer conditions, while on the other it is inherently determined by the nature of living matter. Accordingly, the primordial image is just as undoubtedly related to certain manifest, ever-renewing and therefore constantly effective Nature-processes as it is to certain inner determinants of the mental life and to life in general. The organism confronts light with a new formation, the eye, and the psyche meets the process of Nature with a symbolical image, which apprehends the Nature-process just as the eye catches the light. And in the same way as the eye bears witness to the peculiar and independent creative activity of living matter, the primordial image expresses the unique and unconditioned creative power of the mind.

 

The primordial image, therefore, is a recapitulatory expression of the living process. It gives a co-ordinating meaning both to the sensuous and to the inner mental perceptions, which at first appear without either order or connection; thereby liberating psychic energy from its bondage to sheer uncomprehended perception. But it also links up the energies, released through the perception of stimuli, to a definite meaning, which serves to guide action along the path which corresponds with this meaning. It loosens unavailable, dammed-up energy, since it always refers the mind to Nature, transforming sheer natural instinct into mental forms.

 

The primordial image is the preliminary stage of the idea (q.v.) its maternal soil. By detaching from it that concretism which is peculiar and necessary to the primordial image, the reason develops the concept i.e. the idea which, moreover, is distinguished from every other concept by the fact that it is not only given by experience but is actually inferred as underlying all experience. The idea possesses this quality from the primordial image, which as the expression of a specific cerebral structure also imparts a definite form to every experience.

 

The degree of psychological efficacy belonging to the primordial image is determined by the attitude of the individual. When the general attitude is introverted as a result of the withdrawal of libido from the outer object, a reinforcement of the inner object or idea naturally takes place. This produces a very intensive development of ideas along the line unconsciously traced out by the primordial image. In this way the primordial image indirectly reaches the surface. The further course of intellectual development leads to the idea, which is merely the primordial image at the stage of intellectual formulation. Only the development of the counter-function can take the idea further, i.e. when once the idea is apprehended intellectually, it strives to become effective in life. Hence it attracts feeling, which, however, in such a case is much less differentiated, and therefore more concretistic, than thinking. Thus the feeling is impure, and because undifierentiated, is still fused with the unconscious. Hence the individual is unable to reconcile feeling so-constituted with the idea. In such a case, the primordial image, appearing in symbolic form in the inner field of vision, embraces, by virtue of its concrete nature, the feeling existing in an undifierentiated, concrete state; but at the same time, by virtue of its intrinsic significance, it also embraces the idea, of which indeed it is the mother thus reconciling idea with feeling. Hence the primordial image appears in the role of mediator, once again proving its redeeming efficacy, a power it has always possessed in the various religions. What Schopenhauer says of the idea, therefore, I would prefer to apply to the primordial image, since the idea as I have elsewhere observed under ‘Idea‘ should not be regarded as something wholly and unconditionally a priori, but also as something derived and developed from antecedents. When, therefore, in the following excerpt I am quoting the words of Schopenhauer, I must ask the reader to replace the word 'idea' in the text by 'primordial image': he will then be able to understand my meaning:

 

”The idea is never known by the individual as such, but only by the man who is exalted above all willing and above all individuality to the pure Subject of knowledge: thus it is attainable only by the genius, or by the man who has achieved mainly through the works of genius an elevation of his pure gift of cognition into a temper akin to genius: it is, therefore, not absolutely, but only conditionally, communicable, since the idea conceived and reproduced in an artistic creation, for instance, only appeals to every man according to his intellectual powers”, etc.

 

”The idea is unity split up into multiplicity by virtue of the temporal and spatial form of our intuitive apprehension.”

 

“The concept is like an inanimate vehicle, in which the things one deposits lie side by side, but from which no more can be taken out than was put in: the idea, on the contrary, develops within the man who has embraced it conceptions which in relation to its homonymous concept are new: it is like a living, self-developing organism endowed with creative force, bringing forth something that was never put into it.”

 

Schopenhauer clearly discerned that the ‘idea’, the primordial image according to my definition, cannot be reached in the way that a concept or ‘idea‘ is established ('idea' according to Kant corresponds with a “concept derived from notions”), but that there pertains to it an element quite foreign to the formulating reason, rather Schopenhauer’s “temper akin to genius”, which simply means a state of feeling. For one only reaches the primordial image from the idea because of the fact that the way leading to the idea is carried on over the summit of the idea into the counter-function, feeling.

 

The primordial image has advantage over the clarity of the idea in its vitality. It is a self-living organism, “endowed with creative force”; for the primordial image is an inherited organization of psychic energy, a rooted system, which is not only an expression of the energic process but also a possibility for its operation. In a sense, it characterizes the way in which the energic process from earliest time has always run its unvarying course, while at the same time enabling a perpetual repetition of the law-determined course to take place; since it provides just that character of apprehension or psychic grasp of situations which continually yields a further continuation of life. It is, therefore, the necessary counterpart of instinct, which is an appropriate form of action also presupposing a grasp of the momentary situation that is both purposeful and suitable. This apprehension of the given situation is vouchsafed by the a priori existing image. It represents the practicable formula without which the apprehension of a new state of affairs would be impossible.

 

 

Individual (‘unique-being’): The psychological individual is characterized by its peculiar, and in certain respects, unique psychology. The peculiar character of the individual psyche appears less in its elements than in its complex formations.

 

The psychological individual, or individuality, has an a priori unconscious existence, but it exists consciously only in so far as a consciousness of its peculiar nature is present, i.e. in so far as there exists a conscious distinctiveness from other individuals.

 

The psychic individuality is also given a priori as a correlate of the physical individuality, although, as observed, it is at first unconscious. A conscious process of differentiation (q.v.) is required to bring the individuality to consciousness, i.e. to raise it out of the state of identity with the object. The identity of the individuality with the object is synonymous with its unconsciousness. There is no psychological individual present if the individuality is unconscious, but merely a collective psychology of consciousness. In such a case, the unconscious individuality appears identical with the object, i.e. projected upon the object. The object, in consequence, possesses too great a value and is too powerful a determinant.

 

 

Individuality: By individuality I understand the peculiarity and singularity of the individual in every psychological respect. Everything is individual that is not collective, everything in fact that pertains only to one and not to a larger group of individuals. Individuality can hardly be described as belonging to the psychological elements, but rather to their peculiar and unique grouping and combination (v. Individual.).

 

 

Individuation: The concept of individuation plays no small role in our psychology. In general, it is the process of forming and specializing the individual nature; in particular, it is the development of the psychological individual as a differentiated being from the general, collective psychology. Individuation, therefore, is a process of differentiation, having for its goal the development of the individual personality.

 

Individuation is, to this extent, a natural necessity, inasmuch as its hindrance, by an extensive or actually exclusive levelling to collective standards, involves a definite injury to individual vital activity. But individuality, both physically and physiologically, is already given; hence it also expresses itself psychologically. An essential check to the individuality, therefore, involves an artificial mutilation. It is at once clear that a social group consisting of deformed individuals cannot for long be a healthy and prosperous institution; since only that society which can preserve its internal union and its collective values, while at the same time granting the greatest possible freedom to the individual, has any prospect of enduring vitality. Since the individual is not only a single, separate being but, by his very existence, also presupposes a collective relationship, the process of individuation must clearly lead to a more intensive and universal collective solidarity, and not to mere isolation.

 

The psychological process of individuation is clearly bound up with the so-called transcendent function (q.v.), since it alone can provide that individual line of development which would be quite unattainable upon the ways dictated by the collective norm (v. Symbol).

 

Under no circumstances can individuation be the unique goal of psychological education. Before individuation can be taken for a goal, the educational aim of adaptation to the necessary minimum of collective standards must first be attained. A plant which is to be brought to the fullest possible unfolding of its particular character must first of all be able to grow in the soil wherein it is planted.

 

Individuation always finds itself more or less in opposition to the collective norm, since it means a separation and differentiation from the general, and a building up of the particular; not, however, a particularity especially sought, but one with an a priori foundation in the psyche. The opposition to the collective norm, however, is only apparent, since on closer examination the individual standpoint is found to be differently orientated, but not antagonistic to the collective norm. The individual way can never be actually opposed to the collective norm, because the opposite to the latter could only be a contrary norm. But the individual way is never a norm. A norm arises out of the totality of individual ways, and can have a right to existence, and a beneficial effect, only when individual ways, which from time to time have a need to orientate to a norm, are already in existence. A norm serves no purpose when it possesses absolute validity. An actual conflict with the collective norm takes place only when an individual way is raised to a norm, which, moreover, is the fundamental aim of extreme individualism. Such a purpose is, of course, pathological and entirely opposed to life. It has, accordingly, nothing to do with individuation, which, though certainly concerned with the individual by-path, precisely on that account also needs the norm for its orientation towards society, and for the vitally necessary solidarity of the individual with society. Hence individuation leads to a natural appreciation of the collective norm, whereas to an exclusively collective orientation of life the norm becomes increasingly superfluous: whereupon real morality goes to pieces. The more completely a man’s life is moulded and shaped by the collective norm, the greater is his individual immorality.

 

Individuation is practically the same as the development of consciousness out of the original state of identity (v. Identity). Hence it signifies an extension of the sphere of consciousness, an enriching of the conscious psychological life.