Shadow seminar

A four week on-line seminar on 'shadow' was arranged starting from Sunday 29
st
April to
Monday 28
th
May 2012 by Stephani Stephens, Leslie Gardner and Liz Brodersen. The
purpose of the seminar was to differentiate the multifaceted aspects of Jung's concept of
'shadow' from Jungian and post Jungian perspectives.
'Shadow' is one of Jung's most fertile depth- psychological terms, although it still remains
rather maligned and relatively misunderstood as 'negative.' This seminar was an attempt to
address that imbalance by opening up discussion from differing interdisciplinary perspectives
in order to bring 'shadow' into the light!
The aim of the seminar was to expand consciousness about the 'shadow,' both in its collective
and personal ramifications and to assess its potential for initiating socio- political change. As
the IAJS- forum is interdisciplinary, the discussion brings together clinical as well as non-
clinical perspectives.

I
The first Presenter is Helena Bassil-Morozow, academic and author. Her paper is about
the collective and personal shadow.
Helena's paper emphasizes how 20
th
century political disasters prove that the confident urban
individualism characteristic of European nation states is helpless in the face of dark
'collectivity.' For Jung, the individual's struggle against the binding forces of imitation and the
desire to differentiate from the crowd are tied up with the problem of the collective 'shadow.'
Helena approaches 'shadow' via postmodern applications of solutions such as political
correctness and investigation into contemporary anthropology and mass media.

On the Reality of the Shadow

Pavlng wlLnessed Lhe Lwo World Wars and horrlflc consequences of organlsed mass
ldeologles, !ung had no llluslon as Lo Lhe Lrue naLure of Lhe shadow. Pe deflned lL prlmarlly
as 'a moral problem LhaL challenges Lhe whole ego-personallLy, for no one can become
consclous of Lhe shadow wlLhouL conslderable moral efforL. 1o become consclous of lL
lnvolves recognlslng Lhe dark aspecLs of Lhe personallLy as presenL and real' (CW 9/ll: para.
14). 1hls quoLaLlon ldenLlfles Lwo cenLral lssues assoclaLed wlLh Lhls archeLype: Lhe moral
aspecL of Lhe problem, and Lhe shadow's reallLy, Lhe acLuallLy of lLs exlsLence.

no one wanLs Lo be Lold LhaL hls or her lnLegrlLy ls fraglle and can be upseL by a dark force
comlng from Lhe lnslde or Lhe ouLslde. We wanL Lo belleve LhaL we are personallLles wlLh
wholesome ldenLlLles, LhaL we are people who can defend ourselves and deflne our cholce
when faced wlLh envy, greed, lles, manlpulaLlon, cruelLy, abuse, LorLure and murder. We
wanL Lo Lhlnk of Lhe shadow as someLhlng we can conLrol lnLernally - and from whlch we can
dlsLance ourselves ln real llfe. We wanL Lo belleve LhaL Lhe ldeal verslon of Lhe !unglan ego,
Lhe consclous parL of Lhe personallLy, Lhe complex of represenLaLlons whlch consLlLuLes 'Lhe
cenLre of Lhe fleld of consclousness and possesses a hlgh degree of conLlnulLy and ldenLlLy',
ls sLrong and solld enough Lo expose and confronL evll (!acobl, 1973: 7). AccepLlng Lhls parL
of yourself - and Lhls parL of human naLure ln general - ls a morally challenglng declslon. lL
means shaLLerlng Lhe anclenL uLopla of psychologlcal compleLeness, lL means loslng hope ln
human perfecLlon and human goodness. !ung wroLe:

ln reallLy, Lhe accepLance of Lhe shadow-slde of human naLure verges on Lhe lmposslble.
Conslder for a momenL whaL lL means Lo granL Lhe rlghL of exlsLence Lo whaL ls
unreasonable, senseless and evll! ?eL lL ls [usL Lhls LhaL Lhe modern man lnslsLs upon. Pe
wanLs Lo llve wlLh every slde of hlmself - Lo know whaL he ls. 1hls ls why he casLs hlsLory
aslde. Pe wanLs Lo break wlLh Lhe LradlLlon and so LhaL he can experlmenL wlLh hls llfe and
deLermlne whaL value and meanlng Lhlngs have ln Lhemselves, aparL from LradlLlonal
presupposlLlons (CW 11: 328).

1he posLmodern soluLlon Lo Lhe lssue of evll has all been abouL casLlng hlsLory aslde,
forgeLLlng lLs acLuallLy and horror, Lrylng Lo erase Lhe memory of Lhe Lrauma. osLmodern
culLure has been preoccupled wlLh conceallng Lhe paln of reallsaLlon LhaL Lhe shadow ls
always lnslde, lurklng and walLlng for Lhe rlghL momenL Lo aLLack Lhe ego. osLmodernlsL
vlslon of Lhe world, whlch came afLer Lhe emoLlonal anaesLhesla of exlsLenLlallsm - Lhe 1Su
phllosophy of hlgh modernlLy - aLLempLed Lo subllmaLe evll lnLo a myrlad of oLher Lhlngs, Lo
dlsslpaLe Lhe shadow, Lo bury lL under a plle of masks, Lo overlook a ma[or flaw ln human
naLure by maklng up new worlds, assumlng colourful ldenLlLles.

8y dolng all Lhls, posLmodernlsm Lurned Lhe shadow lnLo Lhe LrlcksLer. Lvll has losL lLs
lnLenslLy, lL losL lLs edge. Porror was Lurned lnLo a show, a Pollywood fllm, lL Lransformed
lnLo empLy and meanlngless enLerLalnmenL. 1he LrlcksLer does noL have a core Lo lLs ldenLlLy,
lL ls a shapeshlfLer, eLernally mercurlal ln lLs fragmenLedness. lL ls compleLely, narclsslsLlcally
unaware of lLs brokenness. 8y 'LrlcksLerlslng' Lhe shadow, by Lurnlng lL lnLo a bllssfully
mallclous and playful chlld, posLmodernlsm bellLLled lL, seemlngly dlmlnlshed lLs dangers.
lnsLead of belng whaL lL ls - Lhe Lerrlble reallLy - evll became parL of Lhe comblnaLorlal
narraLlve game, and Lherefore playful, unreal, sllly and even conLrollable and forgeLLable.
Slnce we are masLers of our own narraLlves (accordlng Lo Lhe posLmodernlsL way of
Lhlnklng), we can make up a sLory ln whlch evll ls [usL a sllly puppeL, and can Lherefore be
easlly dlsmlssed or laughed aL. WlLhln Lhe loose and endlessly varlable sLrucLure of Lhe
posLmodern world Lhe shadow ls buL a game, a [oker, harmless ln lLs fluldlLy and lLs lack of
Lhe sLable core, lnnocuously [uggllng gulses, roles and faces.

Powever, Lhe empLy, broken posLmodern LrlcksLer-shadow sLlll sLalks Lhe ego, sLlll wanLs Lo
engulf lL. 1he LrlcksLer-shadow lacks personallLy, and Lherefore may aLLempL Lo approprlaLe
someone else's. Chooslng Lo overlook Lhls danger would be a mlsLake. We llve ln Lhe age of
sporadlc Lerrorlsm when Lhe cognlLlve dlssonance domlnaLlng posLmodernlsL Lhlnklng - lLs
denlal of reallLy, lLs hablL of downplaylng Lhe dark aspecL of human naLure, lLs
raLlonallsaLlons ln Lhe face of Lhe self-dlssoluLlon LhreaL - no longer works. 1he shadow ls
nelLher a [oke nor ls lL a zomble from a Pollywood fllm. lL ls a reallLy. lL has a mlraculous
ablllLy Lo break Lhrough Lhe rules we have seL up for ourselves. 1hls ls parLlcularly alarmlng
when a collecLlve shadow of any slze ralses lLs ugly head. As Pelnz kohuL wrlLes ln hls
analysls of narclsslsLlc rage ln naLlonal psychology,

PlLler explolLed Lhe readlness of clvlllzed naLlons Lo shed Lhe Lhln layer of lLs unspeakably
clvlllzed resLralnLs, leadlng Lo Lhe unspeakable evenLs of Lhe decade 1933 Lo 1943. 8uL Lhe
LruLh ls - lL musL be admlLLed wlLh much sadness - LhaL such evenLs are noL besLlal, ln Lhe
prlmary sense of Lhe word, buL are decldedly human. 1hey are an lnLrlnslc parL of Lhe human
condlLlon, a sLrand ln Lhe web of Lhe complex paLLern LhaL makes up Lhe human slLuaLlon. So
long as we Lurn away from Lhese phenomena ln Lerror and dlsgusL and lndlgnanLly declare
Lhem Lo be a reversal Lo barbarlsm, a regresslon Lo Lhe prlmlLlve and anlmal-llke, so long do
we deprlve ourselves of Lhe chance of undersLandlng of human aggresslvlLy and of our
masLery over lL (kohuL, 2011: 633).

AppllcaLlon of psychoanalyLlc knowledge Lo naLlonal psychologles and hlsLorlcal analysls ls
Lherefore lmporLanL because lL mlghL Lhrow Lhe llghL boLh on Lhe naLure of human
aggresslon and on Lhe meLhods of deallng wlLh lL: '1he psychoanalysL musL noL Lherefore
shrlnk from Lhe Lask of applylng hls knowledge abouL Lhe lndlvldual Lo Lhe fleld of hlsLory,
parLlcularly Lo Lhe cruclal role of human aggresslon as lL shaped Lhe hlsLory of man' (2011:
633).

1he lssue aL sLake here ls Lhe quesLlon of personal boundarles. 1he shadow, when lL arrlves
ln Lhe form of an ldeology, a culL or some less pernlclous and menaclng form (say,
harassmenL and bullylng), aLLempLs Lo lmplanL lLself, or merge wlLh lLs smaller verslon, lLs
Lwln broLher, wlLhln Lhe lndlvldual. lL obsesslvely seeks Lhls momenL of amalgamaLlon, lL
feels a compulslve need Lo break Lhrough Lhe defences, Lo desLroy Lhe boundarles. lL ls ofLen
very forceful ln lLs lnLenL Lo do so. 8uL Lo break Lhrough 'Lhe Lhln layer of clvlllzaLlon' ls only
Lhe flrsL sLep: Lhe real alm ls Lo lnfecL Lhe carrler wlLh Lhe dark conLenLs, Lo flll Lhelr soul wlLh
envy, anger, aggresslon, lnflaLed prlde, murderous lnLenLlons. Mass ldeologles alm Lo
orchesLraLe a meeLlng beLween Lhe Lwo darknesses, Lhe one comlng from Lhe ouLslde Lhe
lndlvldual, and Lhe one dwelllng lnslde and walLlng Lo be released and fulfllled.

1he success of Lhls hldeous venLure depends on Lhe flrmness of Lhe person's (!unglan) ego as
well as on Lhe muLablllLy and peneLrablllLy of personal boundarles. 1he ego ls our vlslon of
ourselves, and we ofLen forgeL LhaL Lhls parL of our personallLy does noL 'embrace Lhe
LoLallLy of man, for Lhls LoLallLy conslsLs only parLly of hls consclous conLenLs, and for Lhe
oLher and far greaLer parL, of hls unconsclous, whlch ls of lndeflnlLe exLenL wlLh no
asslgnable llmlLs' (CW11: para. 390). 1he gravesL mlsLake would be Lo overlook Lhe facL LhaL
Lhere ls someLhlng underneaLh lL all, and become over-confldenL ln our ego's ablllLy Lo
susLaln Lhe abuse comlng from Lhe ouLslde. As !ung warns, 'slnce everyLhlng llvlng sLrlves for
wholeness, Lhe lnevlLable one-sldedness of our consclous llfe ls conLlnually belng correcLed
and compensaLed by Lhe unlversal human belng ln us, whose goal ls Lhe ulLlmaLe lnLegraLlon
of consclous and Lhe unconsclous, or beLLer, Lhe asslmllaLlon of Lhe ego Lo a wlder
personallLy' (CW8: para. 337).

SLrlvlng for wholeness ls ofLen a mlsleadlng and dangerous Lhlng. ro[ecLlons, parLlcularly ln
Lhelr mass varleLy, can be powerful, forceful - even beauLlful and seducLlve ln Lhelr repulslve
ugllness. 1he ablllLy Lo repel a mallclous pro[ecLlon, Lo say 'l don'L Lhlnk so - lL ls your ldea', 'l
refuse Lo behave ln Lhls way', or Lo defend one's moral code ls only someLhlng an lndlvldual
who knows hlmself can do. laLo's SocraLes ln Charmldes adds anoLher slogan Lo Lhe famous
uelphlc command - 'be LemperaLe' (laLo, 1931: 21). 8oLh LacLlcs are useful when faced wlLh
Lhe collecLlve shadow: Lry Lo esLabllsh who you are as an lndlvldual and be able Lo conLrol
your lmpulses. ueflne yourself, defend your boundarles and keep hoplng LhaL Lhe dark forces
raglng ouLslde wlll noL succeed ln LalnLlng you. 8uL, Lo quoLe from kohuL agaln, 'ln momenLs
of despalr and exLreme danger men Lend Lo be less raLher Lhan more raLlonal, LhaL ln such
momenLs Lhey wlll noL Lurn Lo a raLlonal leader, buL wlll be swepL Loward Lhe charlsma of
Lhe Messlah. ?eL, who can really predlcL how man wlll behave when he ls face Lo face wlLh
ulLlmaLe dlsasLer?' (kohuL, 2011: 333).

ln Lhe case of Lhe collecLlve pro[ecLlon, Lhe real horror sLarLs Lhe momenL when Lhe
lndlvldual's personal darkness answers Lhe collecLlve call. Cne can go on forever abouL Lhe
psycho-paLhologlcal, pollLlcal, procedural and sLrucLural aspecLs of Lhe encounLer and
merger beLween Lhe Lwo shadows - Lhe lnLernal and Lhe exLernal - buL Lhe facLs remaln
unchanged. Lvll ls real. eople do horrlble Lhlngs Lo each oLher. sychologlcal pyroLechnlcs
and Lermlnologlcal complexlLles aslde, how does one come Lo Lerms wlLh someLhlng of Lhe
scale of Lhe PolocausL or Lhe CreaL urge ln Lhe nlneLeen LhlrLles ln SLallnlsL 8ussla? Pow
does one face Lhe facL LhaL Lhls dld acLually happen? Smaller-scale lnsLances of evll such as
sporadlc LerrorlsL aLLacks may be less soclally lmpacLful - buL Lhey are no less real. 1he loss of
llfe and Lhe subsequenL amblenL lnLlmldaLlon experlenced by Lhe survlvlng members of Lhe
soclal group are oxymoronlcally auLhenLlc ln Lhelr nlghLmarlshness because Lhe flrsL ls a
Lerrlble facL and Lhe second a pro[ecLlve mechanlsm almed aL Lhe dlsLorLlon of Lhe vlcLlm's
reallLy, lL Lherefore malms reallLy, abuses lL, bllghLs lL, manlpulaLes lL - ln shorL, lL hl[acks Lhe
real.

1o deflne Lhe mercllessly uncompromlslng reallLy of evll, l wlll borrow Lacan's concepL of Lhe
8eal (as one of Lhe Lhree orders, Lhe 8eal, Lhe Symbollc and Lhe lmaglnary). unllke Lhe
Symbollc, whlch ls consLlLuLed ln Lerms of opposlLlons such as LhaL beLween presence and
absence, 'Lhere ls no absence ln Lhe 8eal' (Lvans, 1996: 162). lL cannoL be lgnored and wlll
noL evaporaLe ln Lhe cognlLlve dlssonance of unwlLLlng vlcLlmhood or belng a proxy ln Lhe
hands of an abuslve reglme. 1he 8eal ls non-negoLlable, 'absoluLely wlLhouL flssure' (1996:
162). Cne may lle Lo oneself forever, or aLLempL Lo blame oLhers for one's acLlons - buL facLs
and deeds remaln facLs and deeds. ln Lhe afLermaLh of a human Lragedy one ls always lefL Lo
face Lhe consequences, one wlll be [udged by one's acLlons. Lvll ls physlcal, acLual, facLual -
and people lnvolved ln lL musL be made accounLable for Lhelr declslons.

!ung used a 8lbllcal meLaphor Lo render Lhe reallLy and physlcallLy of Lhe shadow. A llfe-and
deaLh confronLaLlon wlLh lL ls always face-Lo-face, llke !acob's grapple wlLh Lhe Angel ln Lhe
Cld 1esLamenL. !ung wroLe:

WlLhouL wlshlng lL, we human belngs are placed ln slLuaLlons ln whlch Lhe greaL 'prlnclples'
enLangle us ln someLhlng, and Cod leaves lL Lo us Lo flnd a way ouL. SomeLlmes a clear paLh
ls opened wlLh hls help, buL when lL really comes Lo Lhe polnL one has Lhe feellng of havlng
been abandoned by every good splrlL. ln crlLlcal slLuaLlons Lhe hero always mlslays hls
weapon, and aL such momenLs, as before deaLh, we are confronLed wlLh Lhe nakedness of
Lhls facL. And one does noL know how one goL Lhere. A Lhousand LwlsLs of faLe all of a
sudden land you ln such a slLuaLlon. 1hls ls symbollcally represenLed by !acob's flghL wlLh Lhe
angel aL Lhe ford. Pere a man can do noLhlng buL sLand hls ground. lL ls a slLuaLlon LhaL
challenges hlm Lo reacL as a whole man. lL may Lurn ouL LhaL he can no longer keep Lo Lhe
leLLer of Lhe moral law. 1haL ls where hls mosL personal eLhlcs begln: ln grlm confronLaLlon
wlLh Lhe AbsoluLe, ln sLrlklng ouL on a paLh condemned by currenL morallLy and Lhe
guardlans of Lhe law. And yeL one may feel LhaL he has never been Lruer Lo hls lnnermosL
naLure and vocaLlon, and hence nearer Lo Lhe AbsoluLe, because he alone and Lhe
CmnlsclenL have seen Lhe acLual slLuaLlon as lL were from lnslde, whereas Lhe [udges and
condemners see lL only from Lhe ouLslde (CW10: para. 869).

!ung's lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe legend lmplles LhaL, when faced wlLh someLhlng lnexpllcably
gruesome, one musL flghL Lo Lhe end. lL ls, ln facL, a hands-on soluLlon Lo Lhe problem. 1he
physlcal proxlmlLy Lo Lhe enemy embedded ln Lhe meLaphor also lmplles psychologlcal
closeness Lo Lhe shadow. lL ls all Loo easy Lo 'sLay Lrue Lo yourself' wlLhouL any dlrecL
lnvolvemenL ln Lhe evenLs - buL lL ls much harder Lo keep Lhe boundarles lnLacL when
pollLlcal and soclal sLorms are raglng around your seemlngly prlnclpled and sLable 'cenLre of
consclousness'. !ung knew Lo hls own deLrlmenL LhaL 'sLandlng one's ground' wlLhouL
'geLLlng LalnLed' ls noL someLhlng everyone has Lhe sLrengLh Lo do. !ung hlmself serlously
marred hls proflle by falllng Lo wlLhsLand Lhe aLLracLlon of Lhe nazl ldeology - even Lhough he
averLed aL Lhe lasL momenL Lhe Lraln wreck LhaL hls career was LhreaLenlng Lo become.

1here are dlfferenL ways of brlnglng Lhe uelphlc command Lo llfe. 1he lrench exlsLenLlallsLs,
for lnsLance, recommended Lo bulleL proof one's ldenLlLy from Lhe lnfluence of evll. 1hls
could be done by becomlng an auLhenLlc lndlvldual whose (lmposslbly uLoplan) ldeal ls self-
lmposed lsolaLlon as a prevenLlve measure almed aL mlnlmlzlng conLamlnaLlon by Lhe soclal,
pollLlcal or economlc forces. !ung's soluLlon Lo Lhe problem was dlfferenL: lndlvlduaLlng,
flndlng your paLh ln llfe, learnlng abouL yourself ln close proxlmlLy Lo socleLy - and
consequenLly, engaglng wlLh Lhe collecLlve shadow. 1hls awareness of Lhe shadow ls Lhe
hallmark of !unglan phllosophy. knowlng your enemy ls Lhe besL way Lo prevenL Lhe dlsasLer.

8lbllography:
Lvans, uylan (1996) An lnLroducLory ulcLlonary of Lacanlan sychoanalysls, London:
8ouLledge !acobl, !olande (1973, 1942) 1he sychology of C.C.!ung (LlghLh LdlLlon), Lrans.
8alph Manhelm, new Paven and London: ?ale unlverslLy ress.
!ung C.C. LxcepL where a dlfferenL publlcaLlon was used, all references are Lo Lhe hardback
edlLlon of C.C. !ung, 1he CollecLed Works (CW), edlLed by Slr PerberL 8ead, ur. Mlchael
lordham and ur. CerhardL Adler, and LranslaLed by 8.l.C. Pull, London: 8ouLledge.
kohuL, Pelnz (2011, 1978) 1he Search for Lhe Self: SelecLed WrlLlngs of Pelnz kohuL, 1930-
1978, London: karnac.
laLo (1931) Charmldes, or 1emperance, lorgoLLen 8ooks.

I) Discussion. Some questions, comments and answers.

Robert Segal: (definition of the evil?) I have yet to come upon anyone who denies that
human beings are capable of evil or that recognition of the possibility of evil is
advantageous. What, then, are you claiming is distinctive of Jung?
What do you mean by an evil side? Where is it to be found? How does it operate?
Evil is not a neutral, scientific term but a moral one. Just how does one know that something
qualifies as evil?
The hard part in any discussion of evil is (a) defining the phenomenon, (b) explaining the
phenomenon, and (c) curbing the phenomenon. For my part, I don't see how Jung does any
of these three.
Erik D Goodwyn: You said: "Evil is not a neutral, scientific term but a moral one. Just how
does one know that something qualifies as evil?"
It can be a scientific term IF what is being investigated are *reports* of what is considered
evil. An example would be evolutionary ethics (i.e., Krebs D, 2005, "The Evolution of
Morality". In Buss (Ed.) The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology: 747-771). For
example, studies that pose moral dilemmas and record what typical responses to them are. An
example would be if there was a runaway train and you could pull a lever that diverted the
train from a trapped busload of children, but caused the train to thereby crash into a single
man drunk on the track, would you pull the lever? Most people answer 'yes'. No it doesn't
define "evil", per se, but it's a start.
These kinds of studies to not give us much to compare with the learned treatises of morality
that have been passed to us by the various ethicists of history, but they do give us a firm idea
of what our typically universal moral intuitions and reflexes are. They therefore allow us to
better define such nebulous terms as "evil" by looking at their biological underpinnings--after
all, morality evolved for some reason. Understanding why may help to inform more
considered reflection on the matter. Even the most sophisticated analysis of morality is built
on these basic intuitions.
You said: "What, then, are you claiming is distinctive of Jung?"
You're right that nobody denies the existence of evil in the abstract; coming to terms with it in
oneself is another issue, however. Sure, somebody somewhere might do bad things, but not
me! Jung's contribution is to state though I may try to deny it, there are parts of me that are
cruel and vicious and greedy. I can't explain it away, blame other people for it, or
philosophize it out of existence. The sooner I accept them and learn to live with them, the
more whole of a person I can become.
Helena Bassil-Morozow: [Robert] strayed off from the question of the reality of evil deeds
and into the realm of definitions. As I have already stated, I consider this approach counter-
productive. Let me try to explain why.
Consider an example: a person projects his or her thoughts onto other people. Lets imagine
that he or she does it quite forcibly i.e., his actions are cathected with a degree of
aggression. To use Jungian terminology, this person projects his or her own shadow onto
others.
The choice of the individual on the receiving end of the projection is quite clear: to accept the
projection, and with it the aggressors internal reality (which in time, rather like an infection,
may transform into the external reality), or to reject the unwanted opinions.
Now, regarding the owner of the projection: can we consider this person and/or his actions
evil? In my opinion, not at this stage. To me, this persons behaviour looks like a sign of
insecurity or a textbook deployment of immature defences. All is subjective, of course, and
someone else may regard the owner of the projection evil or very aggressive (due to the
presence of the cathected affect). However, strictly speaking, nothing truly bad happened and
no one died.
Consider another example. Lets up the stakes and imagine someone who is truly and darkly
charismatic. He or she successfully projects his shadow onto a group of people. The result is
mass paranoia and mass murder. In this case, the choice of the individual who is trying to
defend himself is far more complex because the projection is much more powerful and its
consequences are REAL. This is no longer the psychological reality of the insecure abuser
this is mass murder.
The shadow has grown in size and became evil.
And heres the answer to your key question: the shadow is evil depending on the scale of the
event as well as on the gravity of consequences. This is why I go back to the issue of the real.
- - -
Where evil resides exactly in human beings is a big question. There are a variety of theoretical
possibilities, including, as [Matt] point[s] out, the soul, the collective unconscious, the
instincts, etc. In trying to pinpoint the exact location or psychological birthplace of the
shadow, we find ourselves in a murky forest of opinions and theories none of which have any
tangible effect on the issue of evil. Jung does not necessarily locate the evil in the other.
Consider, for instance, this quotation: whoever looks into the mirror of the water will see first
of all his own face. Whoever goes to himself risks a confrontation with himself (CW. 9/I:
para. 43).
Jung views the shadow as something that primarily dwells in the psyche of the individual
but 'might be projected' onto the other. The shadow realises itself, comes alive in the other
via the mechanism of projection. Same goes for anima/animus/possessed.
Pivi Alho: (whether shadow is good or bad) Shadow always withholds a possibility for both
good and bad. When not consciously realised in terms of analysis it is always bad in the long
term, because the unconscious, projected, shadow distorts reality in that it refers to the subject
and not the object. It attributes unrealistic traits to somebody else, which is stressful
regardless whether these characteristics are idealised as good and desirable, or demonised as
bad and avoidable. In an unconscious form the shadow is like an unintended but binding
preconception. Introjection of the shadow is even worse...
The essence of the good and bad in this context - and every other context - "evaporates" into
the mystery of life and death, in psychological as well as physical sense. If there is more evil
than good in the world the human race will eventually die and become abolished from the
earth.
Matt Koeske: My impression of Jung's position on evil is that he was acting not only as a
psychologizer but also advocated an "absolute evil" or "archetypal evil" that had a very
theological (rather than psychological or strictly scientific) quality.
I may be misunderstanding Erik, but I felt he was arguing for a biological basis or
predisposition for human morality . . . a predisposition that necessitates the ideas of evil and
good, which emerge within specific (but in many ways arbitrary and various) social contexts.
I agree with Erik about this and feel that the human sense of morality is probably more
biologically predisposed than consciously constructed or learned. The contexts and variations
of expressing morality are likely learned/socialized, but the capacity for morality and the
powerful emotions commonly attached to moral violations are probably largely innate.
I think there are a number of sensible places to look for the "psychologic birthplace" of the
shadow. It is, for instance easy to observe the unintentional construction of the shadow in any
social group with an identity bond (f.e., a tribe). Where identity takes a specific form (as it
always does), that form necessitates an otherness that does not conform. Moreover, all
identity is significantly defined by what it is not, what is doesn't believe, what it doesn't do (or
at least condemns doing). Therefore, as Jung claimed, any conscious attitude held has an
opposite or other that the conscious attitude chooses not to be. As a result, the shadow is
inevitable.
Another probably biologically rooted aspect of human sociality (and therefore human
morality) is the dehumanization of what is considered other. One of the interesting (and
frightening) characteristics of our morality is that moral laws (and "good" behavior) are
reserved only for those others deemed fully human and significantly familiar. One individual
might be exceedingly kind to his kin and tribe but have no qualms about harming other forms
of like without remorse (animals, insects, plants, etc.). That individual may also feel it is
perfectly acceptable to harm or kill other humans that do not satisfy his or her definition of
familiar or "like me".

My point is that morality may be biologically rooted, but it is inextricably connected to the
human sociality instinct, which drives constructions of self and other, us and them. The
sociality instinct is also an identity constructing instinct. Both these instincts and their social
expression determine that there will be a psychological construction of "Not-I" . . . an entity
that we seem to instinctually fear and/or despise. The Not-I, by its very existence threatens
the coherence of the I, because the coherence of the I is quite arbitrary. Any difference (in the
realm of identity), therefore, is an argument for the invalidity of the I.
As for "evil" or a capacity for evil, we can look more closely at the way we are predisposed to
construct and treat others who do not fall into our sense of kin. In these instances, even the
most moral individuals can behave like psychopaths. But we (if we are of the same tribe) do
not usually consider these actions or attitudes toward others psychopathic or evil. Where the
other is dehumanized (and denuded of their "like-me-ness"), we typically allow ourselves to
be or to perpetrate "evil".
I would consider "shadow work" to be a deep and generally painful investigation of this
whole phenomenon as we have participated in it. The shadow worker asks, "How have I been
constructing the other? How do I treat this other? Why have I allowed myself to be so cruel
to and/or to relinquish any identification with this other?" This work demands increasing
tolerance of and sympathy for the shadow. It is not a "redemption" of the shadow (as that
would force me-ness onto the other in a colonizing fashion), but an acceptance that otherness
is inevitable and that it does not have to destabilize (even as it must affect) the I.

George Hogenson: (a clinical example) I do think it is worth keeping in mind that at the
personal level, at least, shadow is not always some massive sense of the evil side of a
person's nature. Jung is pretty clear, I think, that shadow is really that aspect of our total life
experience that is most difficult for us to accept. A small clinical example that I have
permission to use and frequently bring up with analytic trainees illustrates the point. Some
years back I had as a client a rather well regarded professor from one of the major universities
here in Chicago. He was particularly well known as one of those lecturers who could pack an
auditorium due to the brilliance of his lectures. But there was a considerable level of anxiety,
which was the presenting issue. After we had been working for a while, he came in with
a dream in which he had dreamt that he was a rather tacky used car salesman, wearing a
garish yellow plaid sports coat. This was to my mind, a representation of the shadow. While
he was unquestionably a fine scholar, at some level he realized that much of his popularity
was based on showmanship, to the point of somewhat underhanded manipulation of his large
student audiences. He was not evil, nor was he selling cars that would drop their engines as
soon as they left the lot, but he was selling used material--same thing over and over--and he
was relying increasingly on his stage technique to maintain his sales/reputation. Coming to
terms with this aspect of his career was not easy but it was important for his development
into later stages of his life.
Susan Rowland: I am interested in Helena's argument that "postmodernism" has diminished
our sense of the reality of evil and given a trickster version of Jung's shadow without grip on
body, nature etc. It would really help if you characterized this version of "postmodernism" as,
even though its era seems to be largely exhausted, it still defeats simple categorization, in my
view.
For example, rather than being obscured by some deflating "postmodern" force of theory, I
might argue that Jung's sense of the way the reality of the unconscious undermines secure
knowing gives him an affinity with later postmodern arguments. I am not saying that Jung IS
postmodern; rather that he anticipates and in my view answers rather a lot of it!
This finally leads me to build on George Hogenson's invaluable clinical example of shadow
and suggest that Jung's shadow is a marvellously powerful image for the challenges to the
stability of meaning in a complex culture and semiotics like ours. To pursue the Lacanian
analogy, Jung's shadow is the Real dynamically animating the Symbolic Order.

II
The second Presenter is Erik D. Goodwyn, MD, Psychiatrist, academic and author. His
paper is about the shadow and archetypes.
Erik's paper explores concepts from his book (2012) The Neurobiology of the Gods, chapter
10, 'The Shadow' in affective neuroscience and the creative production of mental imagery
such as found in myth and dreams. Erik pays particular attention to non-dualistic cultural
images of the Self which include the mercurial, 'shadow' archetypal elements expressed, for
example, through Woden (Germanic myth), Merlin and Mercurius. Such personifications
express both the emotionality imbued in 'shadow' as well as its integrative possibilities, if
differentiated and made conscious.
Erik was born in Washington, D. C., and is a graduated scholar of the college with a B.S. in
physics and mathematics at Western Kentucky University. He obtained a M.S. in anatomy
and neurobiology at the University of Louisville where he co-authored several journal articles
in cancer cell research. He graduated from the University of Cincinnati with an M.D. and
went on to psychiatric residency training at Wright State University. He is an officer in the air
force and has been involved in teaching as well as contributing to research in psychiatric
imaging and genomics studies in addition to caring for a variety of patients from both civilian
and military backgrounds, including soldiers who have been deployed to Iraq and
Afghanistan. He received the Abe Heller Essay award in two consecutive years for essays on
psychodynamic theory and neuroscience.
Erik has published several articles for The Journal of Analytical Psychology, which has
generated a lively discussion among top theorists in analytical psychology (Journal of
Analytical Psychology, Vol 55, no 4: pp. 502-555) from the United States, England and
Australia. Erik has also written a book The Neurobiology of the Gods: How the Brain Shapes
the Recurrent Imagery of Myth and Dreams (Routledge, 2012). The following paper draws its
fascinating material of 'shadow' phenomena from his book as well as from new material not
yet been published....

1he Lye |n the We||Shadow and Se|f
5elJom Jo we floJ symbols of tbe qool wbose Jool ootote ls oot lmmeJlotely oppoteot.
(CW 16, para 398)
lor !ung, Lhe shadow represenLed:
a moral problem LhaL challenges Lhe whole ego-personallLy, for no one can become
consclous of Lhe shadow wlLhouL conslderable moral efforL. 1o become consclous of
lL lnvolves recognlzlng Lhe dark aspecLs of Lhe personallLy as presenL and real..Closer
examlnaLlon of Lhe dark characLerlsLlcs.reveals LhaL Lhey have an emoLlonal naLure.
(!ung, CW9ll, para 14-13)
lrom a blologlcal perspecLlve, Lhe affecLlve sysLems LhaL fuel rage, fear, lusL, resource
seeklng, eLc., are morally neuLral and evolved Lo serve Lhe preservaLlon of Lhe organlsm.
Pumans, however, unlversally have bloculLural mechanlsms ln place LhaL alm Loward
malnLenance of repuLaLlon, LrusLworLhlness and harmonlous soclal cooperaLlon. 8uL Lhese
paLLerns emerge over Lop Lhe more prlmlLlve sysLems LhaL fuel vlolenL agonlsLlc compeLlLlon
for resources. 1he gullL LhaL Lhese newer blo-soclal sysLems generaLe ls Lherefore someLlmes
aL odds wlLh Lhe more baslc reflexlve energy of rage, fear, or lusL sysLems. So lL seems Lhe
human mlnd ls born lnLo confllcL and a Lendency Lo repress, dlssoclaLe or dlvlde, parLlcularly
when challenged by Lrauma or exLremely confllcLlng needs, a flndlng supporLed by Lherapy
case sLudy (van der ParL eL al, 2006) as well as neurosclenLlflc lnvesLlgaLlons (Coodwyn,
2012, Mcnamara 2009). 1hese aspecLs whlch are separaLed from consclousness (or have yeL
Lo surface) encompass Lhe Shadow.
8efusal Lo accepL Lhe darker/Shadow aspecLs of Lhe personallLy helps perpeLuaLe confllcLed
and unhealLhy paLLerns (!ung, CW 16, para 381). ln facL, Lhe approach of many sLyles of
Lherapy lnvolves accepLlng Lhem and becomlng consclous of Lhem, whlle noL allowlng Lhem
Lo domlnaLe behavlor. lnsLead, Lhe goal ls Lo use Lhem ln more conLrolled, consLrucLlve, and
flexlble ways. !ung emphaslzes ln CW 16 LhaL Lhe process of lndlvlduaLlon conLalns a
conLlnual lnLerplay of opposlLes, and Lhls lnLerplay can be seen as Lhe lnLermlngllng of
shadow, ofLen deplcLed ln lmages of Lhe Self, as Lhe Self conLalns Lhe LoLallLy of Lhe human
belng.

Se|f and ShadowImages from Lng||sh ner|tage
1hough Lyplcal exploraLlons of Self symbols LradlLlonally explore our Classlcal lnherlLance ln
Lhe WesL, Lhe parL of our culLural symbollsm LhaL ls carrled by Lhe Lngllsh language conLalns
aspecLs LhaL warranL furLher lnvesLlgaLlon, as language can be seen as a vessel of culLure,
whlch lncludes collecLlve consclous and unconsclous maLerlal. ln CW 13 and 16, !ung
descrlbes Lhe laLe Medleval lmage of Lhe Self as Mercurlus, we can supplemenL Lhls analysls
uslng Lhe avallable Cermanlc maLerlal from whlch Lhe Lngllsh herlLage orlglnally derlves, and
lnLo whlch Lhe Classlcal maLerlal (such as Lhe god Mercurlus) was adopLed (sLarLlng roughly
ln Lhe 7
Lh
cenLury wlLh ChrlsLlanlzaLlon of Lhe Anglo-Saxons and conLlnulng afLer), ln
parLlcular wlLh regard Lo Shadow elemenLs.
Among Lhe an-Cermanlc LradlLlons from whlch Lngllsh derlved, l argue LhaL Lhe pre-
ChrlsLlan lmage of Lhe Self was Woden. Woden ls Lhe mosL well documenLed of Lhe pagan
gods of Lhe Anglo-Saxons (Cwen, 1983), and a god of many aspecLs. Accordlng Lo Cermanlc
scholar L.C. 1urvllle-eLre,
1he Lngllsh records suggesL LhaL, among Lhe pagan Lngllsh, Woden had fllled a place
slmllar Lo LhaL whlch he fllled ln Scandlnavla as laLe as Lhe LenLh cenLury.he was a
god of prlnces, vlcLory, deaLh and maglc, perhaps also of runes, speech, poeLry. lL ls
noL lnslgnlflcanL LhaL Lhe Lngllsh come chlefly from norLh Cermany and uenmark,
where Lhe culL of Cdln seems Lo be old and parLlcularly well esLabllshed. (1964: 71).
Among Lhe Scandlnavlans, Woden was known as Clnn, whlch has been Angllclzed Lo Cdln
ln modern Lngllsh[1]. Pe ls an anclenL god: 1heologlcally speaklng, Cdln ls relaLed Lo Lhe
lndlan god varuna, who has sorcery, Lhe glfL of shape-changlng and Lhe dlrecLlng of Lhe
forLunes of baLLle ln common wlLh Lhe Cermanlc god.[whlch Lraces Cdln] back Lo lndo-
Cermanlc Llmes." (Slmek, 1993: 244-3).

Woden as Shadow-Inc|us|ve Image of Se|f]Ind|v|duat|on
Cne of Lhe clues Lo Lhe plurlpoLency of Lhe lmage of Woden ls Lhe sheer number of names
aLLrlbuLed Lo Lhls god. Cver Lwo hundred have survlved[2]. ln Lhe Lddas and sagas, Woden ls
ofLen descrlbed as a Lall, spear wleldlng one-eyed man wlLh a long grey beard, a blue or grey
cloak and a wlde-brlmmed haL. Pe appears as a complex characLer, greaL and Lerrlfylng,
lovlng and cruel. Crchard (2002: 276), summarlzes Lhe accounL of Cdln glven ln Lhe
oqlloqosoqo:
Cdln was Lhe cleveresL of all, and from hlm all Lhe oLhers learned Lhelr arLs and skllls.
8uL he knew Lhem flrsL, and more Lhan oLher folk....When he saL among hls frlends,
hls face was so falr and dlgnlfled, LhaL Lhe splrlLs of all were upllfLed by lL, buL when
he wenL lnLo war he seemed fearsome Lo hls foes. 1hls was because he could change
hls skln and appearance ln any fashlon he so chose..Cdln knew how Lo alLer hls
shape: hls body would lle as lf dead or sleeplng, whlle he would be ln Lhe form of a
flsh or snake or blrd or beasL. WlLh only a word or Lwo he knew how Lo puL ouL flre,
calm Lhe sLormy sea or change Lhe wlnd Lo any dlrecLlon he wanLed.Cdln was skllled
ln Lhe arL [of prophecy]. 1hrough Lhls he was able Lo know beforehand Lhe faLe of
men and whaL had noL yeL come Lo pass. (Crchard, 2002: 276-277).
We can see here Lhe ways ln whlch Woden manlfesLs as an organlzlng force, changlng Lhe
fabrlc of Lhe sub[ecLlve world, and aware of Lhe greaL Lurnlngs of evenLs LhroughouL all
corners of lL.
A number of anlmals are closely assoclaLed wlLh Woden, lncludlng hls Lwo ravens Pugln and
Munln (LhoughL" and mlnd") and hls Lwo wolves Cerl and lrekl (ravenous" and greedy"),
unlfylng Lhe cerebral wlLh Lhe vlsceral, and occupylng Lhe 'flfLh' wlLhln Lhem. Llsewhere,
Crchard has Lhls Lo say:
.mosL noLably Lhe quesL for wlsdom and knowledge, LogeLher wlLh an eager passlon
for uslng sex and decepLlon ln Lhe pursulL of hls alms.Cdln ls ofLen found ln Lhe
sources engaged ln a baLLle of wlLs, wheLher wlLh glanLs.wlLh humans.and even
wlLh oLhers of Lhe 4slr..Pls close assoclaLlon wlLh Lhe dead ls also apparenLly
connecLed wlLh Lhls LhlrsL for knowledge, whlch exLends Lo speaklng wlLh Lhe hanged
and malmed, and ralslng Lhe dead Lo seek wlsdom. (2002: 274).
1hese commenLs llnk Woden noL only wlLh organlzaLlon, orlglnaLlon, and flrsL" crafLs and
acLlvlLles, buL also wlLh a powerful forward movlng energy of seeklng. Woden ls Lherefore a
unlflcaLlon of many energles and opposlLes. Woden ls ofLen seen ln Lhe myLhs as acqulrlng
knowledge from exLremely wlse and anclenL glanLs, noLably learnlng powerful maglc from
hls uncle (a glanL). Woden ls also Lhe god of poeLry and spoken maglc, whlch Lo oral culLures
such as Lhe pre-ChrlsLlan Cermanlc Lrlbes, ls noLhlng less Lhan Lhe preservaLlon of culLure.
1he self-sacrlflce of Woden on ?ggdrasll, accordlng Lo Slmek,
ls also well-known from lnlLlaLlon rlLes ln archalc culLures, and has sufflclenL parallels
ln lndlan (ra[paLl, krsna) and ln Creek myLhology (ulonyslus) Lo warranL lLs
accepLance as an lndo-Cermanlc moLlf. ConsequenLly, Lhe orlgln of Cdln's self-
sacrlflce should be seen as one of Lhe shamanlsLlc lnlLlLaLlon rlLes lnLo Lhe knowledge
of poeLry and maglc connecLed wlLh Lhe knowledge of Lhe runes [mysLerles]. (1993:
249).
1he comparlsons beLween Woden's sacrlflce, speared upon Lhe Lree, ls of course slmllar Lo
Lhe lndependenL symbollsm of ChrlsL's sacrlflce on Lhe cross:
1he sacrlflce of Cdln Lo hlmself may Lhus be seen as Lhe hlghesL concelvable form of
sacrlflce, ln facL so hlgh LhaL, llke many a rellglous mysLery, lL surpasses our
comprehenslon. lL ls Lhe sacrlflce, noL of klng Lo god, buL of god Lo god, of such a klnd
as ls relaLed ln ScrlpLure of Lhe sacrlflce of ChrlsL.alLhough every one of Lhese had lLs
rooLs ln pagan LradlLlon. (1urvllle-eLre, 1964: 48-30).
noLe also Lhe connecLlon beLween Lhls sacrlflce and Lhe sacrlflclng of Lhe prlmordlal glanL
?mlr aL Lhe creaLlon of Lhe world. 1he force behlnd Lhls acL-Woden hlmself-ls also Lhe
force LhaL acLs slmllarly upon lLself, as lf lLeraLlng a conLlnual relenLless process of
dlfferenLlaLlon. 1hrough Lhls acL, Woden acqulres Lhe power of speech, runes (mysLerles),
poeLry, song, and maglcal lncanLaLlons. ln oLher words, he achleves Lhe lmmense power of
language/culLure. Pe galns such lnslghL only Lhrough hls own palnful lnvoluLlons and
expanslons, whlch parallels Lhe process of lndlvlduaLlon tbtooqb endless conLacL wlLh
Shadow ptlmo motetlo.

A Comp|ex of Images and Ant|mon|es
Woden also embodles a unlon of mascullne and femlnlne elemenLs, he pracLlces Lhe
female" maglc of prophecy, whlch he learned from lreya-Lhe supremely beauLlful goddess
of maglc, deaLh, sexual passlon, and ferLlllLy. Woden also has an army of feroclous female
warrlors known as valkyrles who are varlously deplcLed as enacLlng hls wlll, Leachlng warrlors
baLLle maglc, or someLlmes falllng ln love wlLh heroes-connecLlng flerce anlma lmages Lo
Lhe Self. Lven furLher blurrlng of boundarles comes from Lhe observaLlon LhaL Lokl, Lhe
morally amblguous and gender-crosslng LrlcksLer god who helps brlng abouL 8agnark and
ends up sldlng agalnsL Lhe gods, ls Woden's blood broLher".
Woden Lherefore forges Lhe llnk beLween creaLlon and desLrucLlon and ls a cenLral player ln
Lhe Lhree greaL sacrlflces of Lhe myLhology-flrsL, he (Lrlpled wlLh hls Lwo broLhers)
sacrlflced ?mlr, hls ancesLor, Lo creaLe Lhe world. Second, he sacrlflced hlmself Lo hlmself ln
order Lo achleve Lhe maglcal power and wlsdom Lo rule. 1hlrd, he ls doomed Lo sacrlflce
hlmself wllllngly aL 8agnark for Lhe sake of Lhe new world Lo rlse afLer. Woden sLraddles Lhe
boundarles of good and evll, god and glanL, llfe and deaLh, male and female, creaLlon and
desLrucLlon, reason and lnsLlncL, llghL and darkness.
llnally, Lhe myLhs Lell us Woden and hls many chlldren carve ouL Asgard and Lhe morLal
realms-Lhe worlds of Self and ego, respecLlvely-and creaLe a space from Lhe surroundlng
chaos of !Lunhelmr and Lhe underworlds, and Lhls space ls ln a sLaLe of eLernal change and
cycllc evoluLlon, where Lhe powerful, wlld, wlse, beauLlful, ugly, and lusLful unconsclous
forces are consLanLly lmplnglng upon Lhe realms of gods and humans, and musL be dealL
wlLh Lhrough means LhaL range from placaLlon and marrlage Lo ouLrlghL Lrlckery and
warfare. And on Lhe oLher slde of Lhls, Woden's blood-broLher Lokl, who ls also boLh god and
glanL, ls foreLold Lo brlng abouL Lhe desLrucLlon of Asgard and Mldgard, lnverLlng creaLlon.
1hls cosmology appears Lo map well Lo Lhe dynamlcs of psyche.

1ransformat|ons of Se|f |mages
ln Lhe WesL, lL appears LhaL as ChrlsLlanlLy pressed norLhward and absorbed Lhe heaLhen
Lrlbes, Lhe older lmages of Self-ego dynamlcs became overshadowed by Lhe newer rellglous
lmages. 1here are slgnlflcanL dlfferences, however, ln LhaL Lhe narraLlve of ChrlsL's herolc
[ourney of sacrlflce lnvolves a sharply deflned moral dlmenslon LhaL was noL presenL ln Lhe
older LradlLlon. !ung argued ln CW 9ll and CW 13 (see also !ung and von lranz, 1970) LhaL Lhe
absoluLe rlghL and wrong LhaL came Lo characLerlze ChrlsLlanlLy qulckly produced anLl-
ChrlsL" lmages ln folklore and legend whlch cropped up consLanLly LhroughouL Lhe medleval
perlod and were a necessary consequence of Lhls spllLLlng. 1he dynamlcs of Lhe Self LhaL we
have explored Lhus far suggesL LhaL Lhere ls always a movemenL ln myLhlc expresslon
Lowards characLers who are more unlfled and amblguous ln Lhelr naLure, even afLer
characLers llke Woden were forgoLLen.
Cne such characLer LhaL emerged posL-converslon LhaL seems Lo flL Lhls descrlpLlon ls Lhe
sLrange characLer of Merlln. Legends abouL Merlln were, and are, remarkably reslllenL across
Lhe generaLlons, orlglnally spreadlng rapldly and fasclnaLlng generaLlons noL long afLer Lhe
converslon ln Lhe 8rlLlsh lsles. Merlln grew ln popularlLy ln Lhe conLexL of ChrlsLlanlLy, and lL
was noL long unLll Merlln was even placed on Lhe same level as blbllcal propheLs (Ashe,
2006). Llke Woden, Merlln ls of amblguous orlglns (belng born from Lhe maLlng of a demon
and a morally pure ChrlsLlan woman), has powers of prophecy and maglc, and ls sald Lo have
dled by hanglng and lmpallng (drownlng ls added Lo Merlln's Lhree deaLhs"), buL yeL he llves
on. 8oLh characLers shape change and prophesy and are assoclaLed wlLh holy vessels: Merlln
wlLh Lhe Crall, and Woden wlLh Lhe Poly Mead of oeLry. 8oLh characLers are also morally
amblguous and are glven Lo flLs of madness, and are palred wlLh equally maglcal wlves,
Merlln wlLh Lhe falry vlvlane or nlmue, and Woden wlLh Lhe maglcal lrlgga or lreya. Merlln
ls also aLLached Lo a greaL Lree descrlbed as belng ln Lhe cenLer", Lhe rlory Cak ln some
legends, as Woden ls llnked Lo ?ggdrasll.
Merlln, llke Woden, ls parL glanL/demon, enemy and frlend, dangerous and benevolenL. Ashe
goes on Lo llnk Merlln's sLorles wlLh older CelLlc myLhs, such as Lhe Welsh god Mabon, and
llnks 8rlLlan wlLh Merlln as posslbly orlglnally an ancesLral delLy (Ashe, 2003: 113), much llke
Woden was Laken as anclenL ancesLor Lo Lhe Anglo-Saxons. Ashe says of Merlln:
ln hls myLhlc fullness he ls an unclasslflable belng wlLh unlque powers and
knowledge, nelLher dlvlne nor demonlc, yeL wlLh someLhlng of boLh-human desplLe
hls profound sLrangeness, and supporLlve of Lhe good, lf ln ways LhaL are no one
else's. (Ashe, 2003: 213-216).
1hls could easlly apply Lo Woden's characLerlzaLlon.

Woden and Mercur|us
Lmma !ung and M.-L. von lranz argue ln 1be Ctoll leqeoJ (1970) LhaL Merlln represenLs Lhe
mlsslng elemenL, Shadow, LhaL Medleval ChrlsLlanlLy spllL off and LhaL Merlln's legend grew
so qulckly because of Lhe psychologlcal vold he fllled. lf we follow Lhls reasonlng, lL becomes
evldenL LhaL such a vold was creaLed when wldespread Lales of Woden faded from popular
memory. 1hough noL focuslng on Woden per se, !ung and von lranz do noLlce a flrm
resemblance beLween Merlln and WoLan, anoLher name for Woden. 1hey also argue Lhe
numerous connecLlons beLween Merlln and Lhe flgure spoken of ln laLer alchemlcal LexLs,
Lhe god/splrlL Mercurlus:
1he efflorescence of Lhe Merlln llLeraLure colnclded ln Llme wlLh LhaL of CccldenLal
alchemy, and ln Lhe laLLer we flnd a personlflcaLlon of Lhe arcane subsLance, whlch
bears a sLrlklng resemblance Lo Merlln, namely Lhe alchemlcal Mercurlus..lL ls
remarkable how many feaLures Merlln and Lhe Mercurlus of Lhe alchemlsLs have ln
common.Moreover we are enLlLled Lo compare Merlln wlLh Lhe alchemlcal
Mercurlus slnce Lhe alchemlsLs Lhemselves dld so. (1970: 368-371, emphasls ln
orlglnal).
We are furLhermore encouranged Lo compare Mercurlus wlLh Woden because hlsLorlans as
far back as Lhe 1
sL
cenLury CL dld so, as wlll be evldenL. !ung and von lranz furLher noLe LhaL
Mercurlus and Merlln are boLh maLerlal and splrlLual belngs, and represenL Lhe process by
whlch Lhe lower and maLerlal ls Lransformed lnLo Lhe hlgher and splrlLual, and vlce versa"
(1970, 372). lurLhermore Lhey boLh are devlllsh yeL redeemlng psychopomps, as well as
evaslve LrlcksLers:
lL ls amazlng how such a flgure of Lhe Self emerges almosL slmulLaneously as
Mercurlus ln CccldenLal alchemy and as Merlln ln Lhe Crall legend. 1hls lndlcaLes how
profound Lhe psychlc need musL already have been aL LhaL Llme for some such
undlvlded personlflcaLlon of Lhe lncarnaLed Codhead LhaL should heal Lhe opposlLes
of ChrlsL-AnLlchrlsL.ln Merlln Lhe older lmage of Cod ls probably resusclLaLed, an
lmage ln whlch aspecLs of WoLan are mlngled..(1970, 372-373).
More Lhan mlngled, l argue, buL repeaLed. !ung sald of Mercurlus:
.he represenLs on Lhe one hand Lhe self and on Lhe oLher Lhe lndlvlduaLlon process
and, because of Lhe llmlLless number of hls names [anoLher LralL shared wlLh
Woden], also Lhe collecLlve unconsclous" (CW13, para 284).
!ung psychologlzes Lhe god as an lmage of lndlvlduaLlon and LransformaLlon, and Lheorlzes
LhaL Mercurlus personlfles Lhe unconsclous [and ls] ls essenLlally 'duplex,' paradoxlcally
duallsLlc by naLure, flend, monsLer, beasL, and aL Lhe same Llme panacea.." (CW 16, para
389). Llsewhere:
1he alchemlsLs apLly personlfled lL as Lhe wlly god of revelaLlon, Permes or
Mercurlus, and LhoughL Lhey lamenL over Lhe way he hoodwlnks Lhem, Lhey sLlll glve
hlm Lhe hlghesL names, whlch brlng hlm very near Lo delLy." (CW 16, para 384).
Mercurlus, llke Woden, ls a Lrlple-god: ln Lhe norse creaLlon sLory, Woden ls Lrlpled Lo
lnclude Lwo broLhers whose names alllLeraLe ln roLo-Cermanlc wJlooz, wlljoo, w!boz:
lnsplraLlon/fury", LhoughL/wlll", numen/splrlL", a sLrucLure found ln many myLhologles of
Lrlple-gods. 8oLh Woden and Mercurlus are amblvalenL, healers and desLroyers, wlly and
dangerous, klllers and lovers, Leachers and decelvers. 1ogeLher Lhey are assoclaLed wlLh Lhe
greaL Lree (such as Lhe greaL Cak of Mercurlus descrlbed ln CW 13, para 239-243[3]), are
vengeful, and have boundless rlches. Mercurlus and Woden dwell ln Lhe rooLs of Lhe greaL
Lree[4], are gods of revelaLlon/lnsplraLlon, LransformaLlon, have myLhs ln whlch Lhey are
burned buL unharmed, are called good ooJ evll[3], are orlglnaLors of maglcal scrlpLs[6], are
Lled Lo a hermaphrodlLlc god/glanL, are lasclvlous, and connecL above and below Lhrough
Lhelr acLlons.

Deve|opments Across 1|me
!ung argued LhaL Lhe lnLrospecLlve broodlng of Lhe cenLurles gradually puL LogeLher Lhe
flgure of Mercurlus and creaLed a symbol whlch, accordlng Lo all Lhe psychologlcal rules,
sLands ln a compensaLory relaLlon Lo ChrlsL." (CW 13, para 293). 8uL as we have seen, from
Lhe perspecLlve of Lhe Cermanlc-Lngllsh language-complex, such an lmage was already
exLanL before ChrlsLlanlLy arrlved-he was apparenLly redlscovered" by Lhe alchemlsLs. 1he
ChrlsL lmage ls, accordlng Lo !ung, Lhe archeLype of consclousness-lL ls a dlfferenLlaLlon ln
whlch Shadow ls enLlrely Lranscended, leavlng Lhe moral perfecLlon of Lhe ChrlsL. 8uL lf we
follow !ung and von lranz's speculaLlons here, lL appears LhaL a more unlfylng and
anLlmonlal, and perhaps foundaLlonal flgure re-formed noL long afLer ln Merlln, and even ln
Lhe same locaLlon (Lngland) where Lhe prevlously Woden-worshlpplng Anglo-Saxons seLLled,
connecLlng a sequence of hlghly perslsLenL lmages across Lhe mlllennla, sLarLlng wlLh Lhe
archalc roLo-Cermanlc god *woooz (WesL, 2007)[7]. We can plece LogeLher, Lhen, LhaL
Lhe LranslLlon of Lhe roLo-Cermanlc-Cermanlc-Lngllsh LradlLlon carrled a reslllenL lmage of
Lhe Self:
*woooz a Woden a Merlln a Mercurlus
Whlle Lhe consclous aLLlLude, popularlLy and worshlp Loward Lhese flgures changed, Lhe
lmagery lLself reLurned conLlnually Lo Lhe same complex afLer Lhe lnLroducLlon of Lhe ChrlsL
flgure, wlLh Mercurlus reLurnlng nearly full clrcle Lo Woden: even as early as Lhe 1
sL
CenLury
CL, 1aclLus, lnLerpreLlng forelgn gods as 8oman, labels Lhe pagan Cermanlc chlef god Woden
as Mercurlus" ln hls Cetmoolo. noLably, !ung comblnes Lhese lmages slmllarly as Lhe pagan
god Permes-Mercurlus-WoLan" ln CW 13, Lhough he does noL dlscuss Lhe
Cermanlc/norse/Anglo-Saxon maLerlal as deeply as l have here. 1he Shadow-mlngled
lmages of Lhe Self sLubbornly reslsLed eradlcaLlon, drlfLlng back Lo Lhe same complex over
Lhe cenLurles, desplLe varlous efforLs aL eradlcaLlon, reLurnlng always Lo Lhe lmage varlously
labeled as *woooz-Woden-Merlln-Mercurlus. As menLloned, !ung argues (CW 13) LhaL
ChrlsL was Lhe archeLype of fully dlfferenLlaLed consclousness and Mercurlus Lhe
unconsclous. lnLeresLlngly, Lhe pagan myLhs acLually presage Lhls dlfferenLlaLlon, keeplng lL
conLalned wlLhln Lhe lmage of Woden: Woden sacrlflced an eye Lo Lhe well of
creaLlon/faLe/maglc, and Lherefore sees boLh Lhe consclous worlds and Lhe prlmordlal
unconsclous underworlds. Pls gaze spans boLh realms.
ln whaLever gulse, Lhese reslllenL lmage complexes have aL Lhelr core Lhe essenLlal elemenL
of Shadow. 8eplaclng Woden wlLh ChrlsL-who ls compleLely free of Shadow-only led Lo
anoLher complex of lmages Lo accreLe around Lhe older Lype of Self lmage whlch demanded
Shadow lncluslon. And even Lhls LransformaLlon, Loo, ls also plcLured ln Lhe myLhs, such LhaL
Woden ls deplcLed as capable of resurrecLlng hlmself[8], Shadow and all.
1he Self, as an archeLype, cannoL be observed dlrecLly, buL musL be vlewed Lhrough lLs effecL
on lmagery. 1hrough Lhe foregolng analysls, we can see how Lhe archeLype of Lhe Self has
drawn lmagery Lo lL across scores of generaLlons, glvlng us a beLLer look aL lLs lnner
worklngs-Lhe resulLs appear Lo demand Shadow as crlLlcal elemenL LhaL reslsLs Lhe mosL
powerful moral lmperaLlves Lo exclude lL. 1hls may be due Lo Lhe exLenslve blologlcal
underplnnlngs of whaL normally lles ln Lhe Shadow: lusL and rage, buL someLlmes repressed
play and seeklng acLlon plans-morally neuLral behavlor sysLems LhaL evolved for our
survlval, buL someLlmes need Lhe coordlnaLlng and lnLegraLlng acLlon of lndlvlduaLlon Lo
lnLeracL smooLhly and flexlbly.
!ung says of Mercurlus: as an anclenL pagan god he possesses a naLural undlvldedness
whlch ls lmpervlous Lo loglcal and moral conLradlcLlons. 1hls glves hlm lnvulnerablllLy and
lncorrupLlblllLy, Lhe very quallLles we so urgenLly need Lo heal Lhe spllL ln ourselves." (CW 13,
para 293). 1hus lL appears LhaL, ln Lhe sLory of Lhe Lngllsh culLural-llngulsLlc LradlLlon, Lhe
many ChrlsL symbols emerged as a dlfferenLlaLlon from Lhe Shadow-lncluslve lmage of Lhe
Self, buL Lhls should be LhoughL of as noL as a teplocemeot of Lhe pagan lmages, buL as
developlng alongslde, or perhaps ouL of Lhe more prlmordlal process, wlLh Shadow conLenL
belng Lhe prlmary elemenL of dlfference: even ln Lhe conLexL of consclous efforLs Lo
eradlcaLe Lhem, Shadow-mlngled Self lmages recur, relnforclng Lhelr lmporLance ln Lhe
lndlvlduaLlon process, exlsLlng as a poLenLlal ln every human psyche.

8|b||ography
Ashe C. 2006. Metllo. SuLLon.
laulkes A (Lrans.). 1993. JJo. Lveryman.
Coodwyn L. 2012. 1be Neotobloloqy of tbe CoJs. 8ouLledge.
!ung CC. 1939 [1979]. Alon: 8esearches lnLo Lhe henomenology of Lhe Self. ln P. 8ead, M.
lordham, C. Adler and W. McCulre (Lds.), Lrans. 8.l.C. Pull. 1be collecteJ wotks of c.C.
Iooq, vol 9ll. 8ouLledge and kegan aul.
!ung CC. 1966 [1983]. 1he racLlce of sychoLherapy. ln P. 8ead, M.
lordham, C. Adler and W. McCulre (Lds.), Lrans. 8.l.C. Pull. 1be
collecteJ wotks of c.C. Iooq vol 16. 8ouLledge and kegan aul.
!ung CC. 1967. Alchemlcal SLudles. ln P. 8ead, M. lordham, C.
Adler and W. McCulre (eds.), Lrans. 8. l. C. Pull, 1be collecteJ wotks of c. C. Iooq, vol 13.
8ouLledge and kegan aul.
!ung L and von lranz M-L. 1970. 1be Ctoll leqeoJ. MyLhos.
LarrlngLon C (Lrans.). 1996. 1be loetlc JJo. Cxford unlverslLy.
Mcnamara . 2009. 1be Neotoscleoce of kellqloos xpetleoce. Cambrldge unlverslLy ress.
Crchard A. 2002. cossells ulctloooty of Notse Mytb ooJ leqeoJ. Cassell
8ussell !C. 1994. 1be Cetmoolzotloo of otly MeJlevol cbtlstloolty. Cxford unlverslLy ress.
Slmek 8. 1993 [2007]. ulctloooty of Nottbeto Mytboloqy. u.S. 8rewer.
1urvllle-eLre, LCC. 1964. Mytb ooJ kellqloo of tbe Nottb. Creenwood.
van der ParL C, nl[enhuls L8S, SLeele k. 2006. 1be noooteJ 5elf. norLon.
WesL ML. 2006. loJo-otopeoo loetty ooJ Mytb. Cxford.


[1] Other variations include Wodan, Wotan, Godan, and Oden.
[2]Among his many names are Aldaf!r father of the world, Baleyg Flaming Eye, Blverkr Bale-worker,
Draugadrttinn Lord of the Undead, Fa!r galdrs Father of magical songs, Fjolnir the Wise Concealer,
Gangari Wanderer, Traveler, Gizurr Riddler, Grimnir Hooded One, Hangatyr Hanged God, Herfodr
Father of Hosts, Hrafnagud Raven God, Hropt Groaner, Wise One, Jlf!r Yule-Father, Oski God of
Wishes, Rnat"r Rune God, Sigtyr God of Victory, Svidur Wise One, Svipall Changing, Thrasarr
Quarreler, Ud Loved, Valdr Vagnbrautar Ruler of Heaven, and Ygg Terrible One (Faulkes, 1995).
[3] The mighty old oak is proverbially the king of the forest. Hence it represents a central figure among the
contents of the unconscious, possessing personality in the most marked degree. It is the prototype of the self, a
symbol of the source and goal of the individuation process. (CW 13, para 241). Jung further remarks that
Mercurius was considered identical with the German national god, Wotan (para 245) but does not mention
details explored here.
[4] One of Wodens names is Svfnir (Sleep-bringer), also a name of one of the serpents gnawing at the roots
of Yggdrasil (Turville-Petre, 1964: 63).
[5] As in Wodens names Ud Loved and Bolverk Evil-Doer.
[6] Hieroglyphs in the case of Mercurius (CW 13, para 225), runes in the case of Woden.
[7] In linguistics, reconstructed words are preceded by an asterisk.
[8] Described in the Hvaml, or sayings of the High One, meaning Woden/Odin (Larrington, 1996).

II) Discussion. Comments, questions and answers.
Elizabeth Brodersen: (dream example) As I understand it, Mercurius, as spirit, can transform
disassociated 'shadow' qualities into acceptable, co-operative ones for the ego. The 'shadow' in
these cases must have enough attractive traits to bridge, balance and overcome 'shadow'
revulsion and the 'taboo' emotions attached to 'shadow,' otherwise such emotions have not
really been accepted and integrated. They remain pretty 'ugly.'
I'd like to offer a dream example from an analysand of Mercurius working in the modern day
psyche which reminds me in certain aspects of the dream George posted last week at the
beginning of the seminar, although the two clinical cases are obviously different. The
analysand in question is an upright, well-educated, rational, conservative banker, lover of
classical music and refined tradition. Anything frivolous or reflecting popular culture he
dismisses as uncultivated and uncouth from which he consciously disassociates himself to
keep his cultured, cautious persona in tact. I would say he is an introverted, intuitive thinker,
who presents a picture of 'normalcy' but suffers from bouts of depression and loneliness which
sometimes manifest themselves in alarming physical symptoms. He has given me permission
to use his dream to show how working with 'shadow' has helped to ameliorate his physical
symptoms as he cautiously integrates his 'shadow' as 'positive' not always 'negative' into ego
consciousness...
' I am standing alone in prison. There are grey walls all around and I feel hopeless and
isolated. Suddenly, a bright yellow, open sports car drives through the prison door with Elvis
Presley sitting at the wheel wearing glitzy 'rock and roll' clothes. His black hair is slicked
back from his forehead. He opens the car door and I get in quickly and we drive off. I feel
intensely liberated.'
Since that dream, the analysand has incorporated Elvis as a co-operative 'shadow' mercurial
personification of his own lost 'sensation' function which he had repressed as 'taboo'
and 'inferior.' Through contact with Elvis as his same sex 'shadow' personification,
even listening to rock music, he says he experiences more joy, spontaneity and
freedom in relationship with others on a direct, dynamic, emotional level. He calls them ' his
Elvis Presley moments...!' In this particular case, I would interpret the 'shadow' as performing
an important compensatory and liberating function. Elvis in his own lifetime was trapped as
a 'shadow' projection of some pretty hefty, undifferentiated, collective 'sensation' himself,
amongst other aspects, so the intra-psychic personifications of Elvis and the banker, in the
dream, combine and work well together (unconscious/shadow; ego/persona) in a creative,
symbolic relationship which I think benefits both aspects in new ways....
The individuation process is difficult, frightening work, more particularly for those attached
to a too- safe, collective persona out of fear of doing or thinking about anything 'risky.' They
need a 'mercurial' dream that helps them neutralise, bridge and integrate 'shadow/self'
aspects to move forward into life. In clinical dream work, I look to see who or what is strong
and irresistible enough to break through and make that connection between 'shadow' and ego
possible. In this case of the banker I mentioned, the spirit Mercurius takes the compensatory
image of Elvis Presley and performs that transformation...

Pam OConnel: I am a visual artist and have a particular interest in the shadow as I
discovered that unbeknownst to me it was present in my strongest work. I wrote my thesis on
"The Shadow in Art" and in it I investigated the Jungian concept of shadow and its
manifestation in art. Whilst doing my Masters in Fine Art I found that as I became more
creative my work was becoming darker. I did not want to go down this dark route and yet I
wanted to progress as an artist. This led to the question of the relationship between creativity
and shadow. Roseanne Bane in "Dancing in the Dragons Den" wrote "Carl Jung said that
creativity comes from the least preferred function, this is, our creativity comes from our
shadow!"
Jung viewed the shadow as part of the psyche that if acknowledged could lead to positive
growth. He believed that in order to realize one's potential as an individual, personally and
creatively, it is necessary to encounter one's shadow. He recognized the positive aspects of
shadow as he felt it contained many positive influences. In fact, he considered it 90% golden
as it contains creative impulses, normal instincts and insights. I identify with this positive
attitude to shadow.
The American writer and educator Erica Jong said, "Everyone has talent. What is rare is the
courage to follow the talent to the dark place where it leads." I believe it is this dark place that
the artist has to visit on their creative journey.

Evangeline Rand: I found your use of the word language in your first contribution a little
bit disconcerting since you went on to talk more generally about mythologies in a more
general sense. So when you came back to word discussion, in your second letter, I found
the rest of your writing fall into place.( Ah yes, language...a vessel of culture.) With much
interest.
Im not sure about the English tradition coming, primarily, from Germany and Denmark...
Then there were the Celtic missionaries who went into german lands so long ago...
I think the English spiritual tradition is rooted in deeply pagan and ancient traditions rooted in
earth forms and so on. I think recent DNA work shows all of the people British Isles and
others in Europe originating at the end of the ice age in Spain. And Im not a historian... But
your point remains...we dwell in land, cultures and mythologies. Unfortunately many of our
mother tongues, around the world, are disappearing at an astonishing rate.


III
The third Presenter is Christopher Hauke, Jungian analyst, academic and author. The
paper is about shadow and film.
Christopher's paper maintains that any struggle with the rejected and despised in the end
brings more self -understanding. He proposes that a similar struggle with popular film with its
stirring of emotion and its more violent genres as the rejected 'shadow' of film-as-art is
worthwhile. The dark liminality of cinema space also offers an opportunity to allow 'shadow'
emotions normally kept away from consciousness to emerge, be experienced and yet stay in
that dark space of the viewing theatre itself. His paper on 'Film and The Shadow' is in part a
chapter in his upcoming book, Visible Mind, Filmaker, Spectator, Psyche, to be published in
2013 by Routledge. This paper offers us a wonderful opportunity to move to the venue of
'shadow' as encountered in film and film going.
Chris is a Jungian analyst and Senior Lecturer at Goldsmiths, University of London, UK, and
a filmmaker. He is the author of Human Being Human, Culture and the Soul and Jung and the
Postmodern: The Interpretation of Realities. He has co-edited two volumes of Jungian writing
on film: Jung and Film. Post-Jungian Takes on the Moving Image (2001) and the new
collection, Jung and Film II The Return published in London and New York in 2011. His
films include the documentaries One Colour Red and Green Ray. The psychological short
Again was premiered in Montreal in 2010. His website is
http://christopherhauke.com/?cat=98

I||m and 1he Shadow

I||m and |ts gaps - empt|ness as shadow to substance.
!ung llnks hls ldea of Lhe shadow Lo lreud's concepL of Lhe personal unconsclous and
lLs repressed conLenLs, lL ls well known LhaL lreudlan psychoanalysls llmlLs lLself Lo Lhe
Lask of maklng consclous Lhe shadow-slde and Lhe evll wlLhln us." (!ung, 1932. CW 11
para.331) buL !ung flnds lL conLalns far more creaLlve poLenLlal,
lf Lhe repressed Lendencles, Lhe shadow as l call Lhem, were obvlously evll, Lhere
would be no problem whaLever. 8uL Lhe shadow ls merely somewhaL lnferlor, prlmlLlve,
unadapLed, and awkward, noL wholly bad. lL conLalns chlldlsh or prlmlLlve quallLles whlch
would ln a way vlLallze and embelllsh human exlsLence, buL - convenLlon forblds". (!ung,
1938. CW 11 para.134).

1here ls a way ln whlch modernlLy ln lLs sLruggle wlLh fragmenLaLlon and ldenLlLy, belng
and shadow, has glven rlse Lo procedures or lnnovaLlons (we mlghL call Lhem) LhaL boLh
encompass and aLLempL Lo heal Lhese very Lhlngs wlLh whlch Lhey sLruggle. Cne example
could cerLalnly be Lhe parLlcular form of conversaLlon lnnovaLed by lreud and !ung known
as psychoanalyLlc psychoLherapy where Lhere ls an assumpLlon LhaL Lhe unconsclous
precedes and llmlLs Lhe dlscourse, whlle aLLenLlon Lo whaL ls sald can help reveal whaL
ls oLherwlse ln Lhe shadows and unknown. ln Lhls way a new narraLlve of Lhe self ls
broughL Lo llghL and a coherence over Lhe fragmenLary naLure of mlnd ls achleved by
glvlng aLLenLlon Lo addresslng Lhe unconsclous whlch ls oLherwlse experlenced as gaps ln
consclousness.

lllm mlghL well be a furLher example. When lL ls pro[ecLed, fllm appears as a semblance
of Lhe real world and ln facL seems Lo have a convlnclng power over Lhe senses Lo offer an
experlence whlch - more Lhan any oLher arL or slmulaLlon or represenLaLlon - produces an
equlvalenL of sub[ecLlve reallLy ln Lerms of emoLlons felL and ldenLlflcaLlons made . ?eL fllm
lLself ls full of gaps. We can only see movlng plcLures because of Lhe non-fllm, Lhe spaces
on Lhe fllm LasLman lnvenLed. Pe declded Lo make small, regular square holes elLher slde
of Lhe cellulold fllm-sLrlp so lL mlghL be dragged regularly pasL Lhe fllm-gaLe Lo leL ln llghL
and expose each frame ln successlon. 8eLween each cellulold frame of fllm, or beLween
each refreshlng of Lhe dlglLal lmage slxLy cycles per second, Lhere ls agaln a momenLary
gap whlch makes Lhe whole llluslon posslble. lL makes Lhe movlng lmage as opposed Lo
Lhe sLlll plcLure. When pro[ecLed, second afLer second Lhe same sprockeL holes are used
Lo drag LwenLy-four separaLe sLlll phoLographs pasL a brlghL llghL glvlng Lhe lmpresslon of a
movlng plcLure on Lhe opposlLe wall of a darkened room. lllm seems Lo re-fragmenL reallLy
so lL Lhen may make lL whole agaln. A Lechnlque Lo Lurn fragmenLarlness - Lhe shadow of a
deslred coherenL 'whole' reallLy - back lnLo Lhe whole we need. ln Lhls way, ln our vlewlng
of Lhe pro[ecLlon of llghL and shadow, we derlve a less fragmenLed sense of ourselves, a
coherence of ldenLlLy pro[ecLed lnLo whaL we see.

1he ked 8ook - Iung's encounter w|th the shadow of the c|v|||sed
ln !unglan psychology Lhe shadow archeLype ls Lhe obverse Lo self-ldenLlLy - lL ls Lhe CLher
Lo all we Lhlnk we are. Shadow may be deflned as LhaL wlLh whlch we do noL ldenLlfy, LhaL
whlch ls re[ecLed as 'noL me'. 1o sLruggle wlLh Lhe shadow and Lo confronL Lhe ab[ecL,
ls one of Lhe Lasks of lndlvlduaLlon - !ung's Lerm for Lhe fulfllmenL of ones poLenLlal as a
unlque human belng. 1hroughouL 1he 8ed 8ook (!ung, 2009), Lhe record of !ung's self-
exploraLlon Lhrough fanLasles and palnLlngs sLarLed around 1913, !ung reporLs hls sLruggle
wlLh many opposed and re[ecLed parLs of hls naLure such as Lhe femlnlne ln hlmself, Lhe
banal, Lhe popularlsed, Lhe lrraLlonal and maglc - all LhaL !ung consclously re[ecLed buL
now flnds he has Lo lnclude ln hls belng.

AL several momenLs, we flnd !ung suggesLlng Lhere may be a place ln Pell for Lhe shadow
aspecLs of psyche whlch he deLecLs ln hlmself and may be found ln many of us. Cne Pell
- belleve lL or noL - ls for Lhose who re[ecL an afflnlLy wlLh clnema, anoLher ls populaLed by
Lhose who re[ecL any ldenLlLy wlLh Lhe lmprlsoned and a Lhlrd for people who so hang on
Lo consclous llfe Lhey never conslder deaLh. Whlle Lhese levels of Pell seem qulLe dlfferenL
- some apparenLly banal, some profound - whaL Lhey have ln common ls Lhey are all
abouL re[ecLlon. Such acLs of excluslon and re[ecLlon lnlLlaLe Lhe sLruggle wlLh Lhe Shadow
archeLype.

Lver slnce Lhe Lumlere 8roLhers flrsL screened Lhelr fllms ln arls ln 1893, popular clnema
has meL wlLh re[ecLlon and dlsdalnfully valued lower Lhan LheaLre and oLher performance
arLs. !usL as Lhe popular novel cannoL compare Lo 'llLeraLure', boLh are accused of belng
purely commerclal and banal. 8uL as any sLruggle wlLh whaL we re[ecL and desplse ln Lhe
end brlngs us more self-undersLandlng, l propose LhaL a slmllar sLruggle wlLh popular fllm
- Lhe re[ecLed shadow of fllm-as-arL - ls worLhwhlle. 1he 8ed 8ook ls !ung's record of
hls sLruggle wlLh Lhe opposlng parLs of hlmself and Lhe conLemporary psyche ln general -
whlch lncludes encounLers wlLh popular clnema and Lhe banal. ln Lhls perlod of hls Lhlnklng
and fanLaslslng, !ung ls aL Lhe sLarL of an lndlvlduaLlon crlsls where everyLhlng he once
belleved and valued ls geLLlng Lurned upon lLs head, an agonlslng crlsls broughL on by
rlfLs beLween !ung and Lhe psychoanalyLlc communlLy, and hls senslLlvlLy Lo Lhe Lurmoll of
Lurope aL LhaL Llme. ln many ways, !ung's encounLer wlLh aspecLs of hlmself LhaL he had
prevlously been re[ecLlng was as much an lndlvldual encounLer as lL was Lo be Lyplcal of
mllllons ln Lhe comlng era. "!ung's personal ldenLlLy as a founder of a new psychology..was
Lhreefold:
psychologlsL (orlglnaLor of a new Lheory and crlLlc of lreud), soclal crlLlc and morallsL
(commenLaLor on
Lhe predlcamenL of modern man), and propheL (crlLlc of LradlLlonal ChrlsLlanlLy). lnsofar as
hls core process was a synLhesls of all Lhree - a 'new way of seelng Lhlngs' - !ung's ldenLlLy
musL be undersLood as a synLhesls of Lhese Lhree self-lmages." (Pomans, 1979: 91)
lor Lhe followlng LwenLleLh cenLury, a 'new way of seelng Lhlngs' was Lo be Lhe pro[ecL of
all.

'8ew|tched by the bana|' - popu|ar c|nema and Iung's ep|phany
!ung beglns from a poslLlon of desplslng popular flcLlon and lLs banal emoLlons ln
one fanLasy reporLed ln 1he 8ed 8ook (!ung, 2009: 262) where he wrlLes of a fanLasy
characLer belng bewlLched by Lhe banal" (lbld.)1he ldea of belng bewlLched by Lhe
banal" ls an example of belng caughL up ln shadow pro[ecLlon and belng mesmerlsed
lnLo achlevlng a sense of ldenLlLy Lhrough Lhls parLlcular verslon of 'noL-me'. Calllng
lL 'bewlLchlng' draws aLLenLlon Lo how dlfflculL lL ls Lo manage a core engagemenL wlLh
whaL we re[ecL and desplse so LhaL we may sLand back and re-assess lL on Lhe way Lo a
reconslderaLlon of our self-ldenLlLy as a whole.

LaLer !ung ls equally negaLlve abouL popular clnema. A furLher fanLasy ln 1he 8ed
8ook helps us Lrack !ung as he quesLlons hls own lmpulse Lo re[ecL Lhls popular mass
enLerLalnmenL, buL laLer has an eplphany ln reallslng lLs human slgnlflcance and value. ln
Lhls fanLasy he calls 'Cne of Lhe Lowly', (!ung, 2009: 263-67) !ung ls [olned by a dlrLlly-
cloLhed man wlLh scars on hls face and only one eye - a Lramp who does noL look
LrusLworLhy." (lbld.: 263) !ung and Lhe man sLrlke up a conversaLlon. 1he man says he ls
looklng for work buL does noL wanL Lo work for a farmer ln Lhe counLryslde because, he
says, 'Lhere ls no menLal sLlmulaLlon, Lhe farmers are clods.'" (lbld.)
!ung ls surprlsed and wonders how Lhls worklng dolL can prlorlLlse hls 'menLal sLlmulaLlon'
before he has even secured hls work. Pe asks Lhe man whaL klnd of sLlmulaLlon Lhere ls ln
Lhe clLy and geLs Lhe answer:
Pe: '?ou can go Lo Lhe clnema ln Lhe evenlngs. 1haL's greaL and lL's cheap. ?ou geL
Lo see everyLhlng LhaL happens ln Lhe world'. [..]
[!ung] l: 'WhaL lnLeresLed you mosL abouL Lhe clnema?'
Pe: 'Cne sees all sorLs of sLunnlng feaLs. 1here was one man who ran up houses.
AnoLher carrled hls head under hls arm. AnoLher sLood ln Lhe mlddle of a flre and
wasn'L burnL. ?es, lL's really remarkable, Lhe Lhlngs LhaL people can do.'" (lbld.)
AL flrsL we flnd !ung sneerlng: And LhaL's whaL Lhls fellow calls menLal sLlmulaLlon!."
(lbld.) ln Lhls, !ung shares an ellLlsL aLLlLude LhaL has prevalled slnce movles began. 8uL
sLruggllng wlLh hls dlsdaln Lowards clnema - Lhls mere enLerLalnmenL for Lhe masses -
!ung reflecLs on hls blased vlew and on Lhe faLe Lo whlch all Lhe anLl-clnema snobs may be
condemned:
l have Lo Lhlnk of Pell, where Lhere are also clnemas for Lhose who desplsed Lhls
lnsLlLuLlon on earLh and dld noL go Lhere because everyone else found lL Lo Lhelr
LasLe". (lbld.)
!ung Lhen Lhlnks agaln abouL Lhe wonders Lhe lndlgenL man says he looks forward Lo
wlLnesslng ln Lhe clnema and flnds he appreclaLes Lhe fellow's vlews even more. !ung
compares Lhe clnemaLlc deplcLlons of wonderful feaLs Lo Lhe appeal of Lales of Lhe SalnLs
and asks hlmself,
lsn'L lL a blasphemous ldea Lo conslder Lhe AcLa SancLorum as hlsLorlcal clnema?
Ch, Loday's mlracles are somewhaL less myLhlcal Lhan Lechnlcal. l regard my
companlon wlLh feellng - he llves Lhe hlsLory of Lhe world - and l?" (lbld.)

!ung sLruggles wlLh hls fanLasy of Lhe clnema as re[ecLed and casL lnLo Lhe shadow back
ln 1913 as parL of hls ongolng [ourney Loward self-knowledge and accepLance. 8y 1928-
1930 ln hls semlnars on uream Analysls, !ung ls happy Lo sLaLe, 1he movles are far
more efflclenL Lhan Lhe LheaLre: Lhey are less resLrlcLed, Lhey are able Lo produce amazlng
symbols Lo show Lhe collecLlve unconsclous, slnce Lhelr meLhods of presenLaLlon are so
unllmlLed." (!ung, 1984: 12)

Shadow and emot|ons - why do we cry at the mov|es more than at ||fe?
opular sLorles and narraLlve fllms ofLen provoke powerful emoLlons and movlng
experlences LhaL leave Lhe reader or vlewer qulLe ouL of conLrol. lor many, especlally for
men ln WesLern lndusLrlal socleLles, belng surprlsed by emoLlons can be exposlng. 1here
Lends Lo be a sense of shame ln reveallng a vulnerablllLy Lo belng moved especlally when
Lhe emoLlon ls ln reacLlon Lo evenLs and people wlLh whom Lhere ls no personal connecLlon
- as wlLh a movle. 1hus, for some, Lhe emoLlons are managed and kepL from belng shown.
1hey are banlshed Lo Lhe shadow where Lhey wlll sLlll seek some form of expresslon,
usually ln pro[ecLlon as sLrong feellngs abouL anoLher's behavlor.
lL sLrlkes me LhaL parL of whaL !ung ls Lrylng Lo keep under conLrol and aparL from hls self-
ldenLlLy when he dlsmlsses Lhe banal ls Lhe experlence of sLrong emoLlons LhaL popular
sLorles and fllms so ofLen evoke. owerful feellngs LhaL overcome Lhe raLlonal mlnd can be
shamlng for many especlally for Lhose wlLh a more lnLellecLual or pragmaLlc approach Lo
llfe.

1he clnema seems Lo be a place where Lhe emoLlons evoked by fllm grlp us and move
us deeply - overrldlng all our apparenL ob[ecLlvlLy and knowledge LhaL we are waLchlng
a flcLlon. 1he dark llmlnallLy of Lhe clnema space offers an opporLunlLy Lo allow emoLlons
normally kepL away from consclousness Lo emerge, be experlenced and yeL sLay ln Lhe
shadows of Lhe clnema lLself. Lmerglng lnLo Lhe dayllghL, wlplng our eyes, ls where Lhe
shame and embarrassmenL begln - unless, LhaL ls, we have resolved Lo accepL Lhls shadow
slde of our belng: an emoLlonallLy LhaL ls always presenL and parL of us, ready Lo be
Lrlggered by surprlse Lhrough Lhe lmages we waLch ln fllm.

Cver and above Lhls general Lendency for Lhe clnema Lo provlde a place for us all Lo
experlence Lhe shadow of Lhe raLlonal - our emoLlonal llfe - many are surprlsed by Lhe
lndlvldual emoLlons cerLaln fllm lmages evoke. Madelon SprengneLher ln her book Crylng
aL Lhe Movles (2002) Lells how aL LwenLy-slx she flrsL dlscovered a parL of herself LhaL
had been cuL-off from full consclousness slnce her faLher's drownlng when she was a
chlld of nlne. She was waLchlng Lhe fllm aLher anchall (SaLya[lL 8ay, 1933). l wasn'L
merely Learful, l was convulsed..Why Lhls sLory, ln parLlcular, and why now?" she asked
herself (SprengneLher, 2002: 6). ln Lhe followlng years Madelon says how she crled aL
Lhe movles buL, When bad Lhlngs happened Lo me ln real llfe, l dldn'L reacL. l seemed
cool or lndlfferenL. ?eL ln Lhe dark and relaLlve safeLy of Lhe movle LheaLre, l would weep
over flcLlonal Lragedles, over someone else's sufferlng." (lbld.) 1he force of her reacLlon Lo
anLher anchall reemerged ln her flfLles when she saw eLer Welr's fllm learless (1993)
abouL a man (played by !eff 8rldges) who survlves an alr crash.
Crylng aL Lhe movles, l have come Lo undersLand, was a way for me Lo begln Lo feel
Lhe
paln of my faLher's deaLh..lL was as Lhough Lhe sadness l had burled when l was
nlne years old lay deep wlLhln my psyche, walLlng for lLs shadow lmage Lo appear ln
Lhe dreamllke space of Lhe movle LheaLer." (SprengneLher, 2002: 11)

owerful emoLlons remaln ln Lhe shadow and denled Lo Lhe resL of Lhe personallLy, lnlLlally
ouL of fear LhaL oLherwlse we may noL survlve and dlslnLegraLe compleLely. SomeLlmes fllm
- and Lhe speclal seLLlng of Lhe clnema space - can be so powerful LhaL lL confronLs Lhe
shadow emoLlons ln a dlrecL way, by-passlng all raLlonallLy and offerlng a re-dlscovery of
abandoned parLs of Lhe self. 1hese are found boLh on Lhe screen lLself and slmulLaneously
ln Lhe emoLlons evoked. As Madelon says, 1he loss l could noL acknowledge ln my own
llfe l could recognlse and reacL Lo onscreen." (lbld.)

Shadow and soc|ety - gangsters and outs|ders
!usL llke lndlvlduals, whole socleLles have Lhelr shadow slde Loo. Compulslve emoLlon,
eroLlclsm, vlolence and crlmlnallLy - Lhe shadow of clvlllsed llfe - all geL caughL up ln Lhe
naLurallsLlc shadows of several fllm genres - especlally Lhose of Lhe gangsLer and Lhe
vamplre. Cne genre long seen as carrylng Lhe collecLlve shadow - and lncorporaLlng lL ln
Lo a vlsual sLyle - ls fllm nolr. Anyone mlghL readlly lnclude Amerlcan fllms of Lhe 1940s llke
uouble lndemnlLy (Wllder, 1944) Laura (CLLo remlnger, 1944) and larewell My Lovely
(Ldward umyLryk, 1944) as prlme examples of fllm nolr buL oLhers as far aparL as 1he
1hlrd Man (Carol 8eed, 1949) - 8rlLlsh and seL ln vlenna - and 1axl urlver (Scorsese,
1976) from Lhe mld-1970s also express Lhe genre sharlng dark Lhemes and nlghL-Llme
seLLlngs. 8uL l would also make a case for Lhe nolr Lone of Amerlcan Clgolo (aul Shrader,
1980), where Lhe darkness of Lhe cenLral characLer's llfe ls made more sLark by lnverLlng
lL and seLLlng Lhe acLlon, noL ln Lhe dark, buL ln lLs opposlLe: Lhe 'nolr' of brlghL Callfornlan
sunshlne.

aul Schrader wroLe 1axl urlver and also dlrecLed Amerlcan Clgolo as Lhe flrsL Lwo fllms
of a Lrllogy deplcLlng an exlsLenLlal characLer, (Lhe Lhlrd, called LlghL Sleeper, sLars Wlllem
uafoe) Lhe man exlsLlng for hls own belng and consequenLly cuL off from all auLhenLlc
relaLlonshlps wlLh Lhe communlLy of wlder socleLy. AlLhough boLh fllms lnvolve forms of
crlmlnal acLlvlLy and evenLually murder, Lhese are noL Lhe fllms' maln Lhemes. Powever, for
Shrader Lhe Lheme of Lhe ouLslder - Lhe shadow-man already famlllar from llLeraLure - led
Lhe way Lo fllms whlch reveal Lhe shadow of socleLy Lhrough Lhe ouLslder's eyes.
ln 1axl urlver, 1ravls 8lckle (8oberL de nlro) ls Lhe ouLslder Laxl drlver ln new ?ork who
slmulLaneously boLh parLlclpaLes ln and condemns Lhe shadow of socleLy he sees all
around hlm. Cox commenLs on MarLln Scorsese's cholces of shoLs where our own, and,
apparenLly, Lhe dlrecLor's, uncomforLable emoLlon ls lefL ln Lhe shadow by movlng Lhe
camera away from Lhe sub[ecL. ln a squeamlshly uncomforLable scene, 1ravls 8lckle ls on
Lhe phone Lrylng Lo ask ouL a glrl who ls never llkely Lo say 'yes'. 1he camera Lracks away
from 8lckle Lo Lhe hallway leadlng ouL Lo Lhe open doors Lo Lhe sLreeL so all we see ls an
empLy space. 1haL, and 8lckle's volce. 1hls ls anoLher example of how Lhe space or gap ln
fllm acLs as shadow - Lhe shadow LhaL 'reveals' Lhe subsLance whlch ls kepL mlsslng from
Lhe frame.

1he 1hlrd Man (Carol 8eed, 1949) ls seL ln posL-war vlenna where Lhe clLy has been
dlvlded lnLo four by Lhe vlcLorlous powers - 8ussla, 8rlLaln, lrance and Amerlca. lL ls
fllmed mosLly aL nlghL wlLh Lhe lasL scenes shoL ln Lhe furLher dark shadows of Lhe sewers
LhaL run beneaLh Lhe clLy - Lhe unseen, unconsclous labyrlnLh LhaL carrles away Lhe clLy's
wasLe whlch no one on Lhe surface wlshes Lo be consclous of. Parry Llme (Crsen Welles)
has sLaged hls own deaLh Lo avold belng caughL for a crlmlnal scam LhaL ls hlghly cynlcal
ln lLs dlsregard of lLs vlcLlms and he has proflLed from Lhelr sufferlng ln a condemnable,
soclally-offenslve way. ln one key speech, Llme polnLs ouL LhaL we all have Lhe Lendency
Lo mlnlmlze Lhe slgnlflcance of oLhers for our own proflL. 1alklng Lo hls frlend Polly MarLlns
ln a carrlage of Lhe CreaL Wheel hlgh above Lhe clLy, Llme looks down aL Lhe people
appearlng as Llny doLs way down below and asks,
Would you really feel any plLy lf one of Lhose doLs sLopped movlng for ever? lf l
offered
you LwenLy-Lhousand pounds for every doL LhaL sLops, would you really, old man, Lell
me Lo keep my money - or would you calculaLe how many doLs you could afford Lo
spend?" (1he 1hlrd Man, 1949. Screenplay by Craham Creen).

Parry Llme's characLer confronLs Lhe shadow of humanlLy LhaL can sacrlflce lLs own klnd
noL [usL for proflL, buL also for pollLlcs ln Lhe devasLaLlon of warfare. Llme represenLs noL
only Lhe parLlcular crlmlnal proflLeerlng LhaL war can engender buL also Lhe even more
perslsLenL dlsregard of human llfe LhaL accompanles Lhe waglng of war. ueaLh ls anoLher
aspecL of our humanlLy whlch geLs casL lnLo Lhe shadow by our modern consclousness
and ln Lhe 8ed 8ook (!ung, 2009: 266) !ung lmaglnes how lL may produce lLs own Pell for
Lhose who have noL Laken Lhe facL of deaLh on board.


I|na||y
!ung, ln summarlslng hls sLruggle wlLh hls own shadow as pro[ecLed onLo characLers ln hls
fanLasles, polnLs ouL how, 1he devll as Lhe adversary ls your own oLher sLandpolnL, he
LempLs you and seLs a sLone ln your paLh where you leasL wanL lL." (!ung, 2009: 261) Caps
ln Lhe flow of reallLy, emoLlons we hlde, Lhe deaLh and vlolence we would raLher noL face,
belng drawn Lo whaL ls popular, are all parL of Lhe shadow - our own oLher sLandpolnL" -
whlch Lhe experlence of fllm may brlng ouL. Shadow ls far more ordlnary and presenL Lhan
Lhe sLruggle wlLh evll lL represenLs for some. lor !ung, evll ls [usL one aspecL of shadow.
Alongslde evll, and equally as lmporLanL, ls everyLhlng else we may hold ln Lhe shadow -
such as Lhe need Lo accepL our conLra-gender self, or Lo accepL our lrraLlonal, lowly self,
or our emoLlonal, lrraLlonal and banal selves LhaL some flnd ln popular clnema. We should
waLch ouL for Lhe shadow ln all lLs forms.
8eferences
Pomans, eLer, 1979 !ung ln ConLexLs. ModernlLy and Lhe Maklng of a sychology
London and Chlcago: unlverslLy of Chlcago ress
!ung, 1932 sychoLheraplsLs or Lhe Clergy ln Coll. Works vol. 11
!ung, 1938 sychology and 8ellglon ln Coll. Works vol. 11
!ung, 1984, Semlnar apers, vol. 1, uream Analysls: noLes of Lhe Semlnar glven ln 1928-
1930, ed. W. McCulre. London: 8ouLledge, p.12
!ung, C.C., 2009. ed. Shamdasanl, S. (Lrans. kyburz, eck, Shamdasanl) 1he 8ed 8ook,
Llber novus new ?ork and London: hllemon Serles, norLon & Co. pp.263-267
SprengneLher, Madelon (2002) Crylng aL Lhe Movles. A lllm Memolr SL. aul, MlnnesoLa:
Craywolf ress
1he SLory of lllm (2011). uocumenLary ln nlne parLs wrlLLen and dlrecLed by Mark Couslns.
Channel 4, u.k. llrsL broadcasL SepLember - november 2011.
lllms
Amerlcan Clgolo (aul Shrader, 1980)
uouble lndemnlLy (Wllder, 1944)
larewell My Lovely (Ldward umyLryk, 1944)
learless (eLer Wler, 1993)
Laura (CLLo remlnger, 1944)
LlghL Sleeper (Shrader, 1992)
aLher anchall (SaLya[lL 8ay, 1933)
1he 1hlrd Man (Carol 8eed, 1949)
1axl urlver (Scorsese, 1976)

III) Discussion. Comments, questions and answers.
Helena Bassil-Morozow: I entirely agree with your observations about the nature of the
shadow, its link to creativity (via sublimation) and its contents (shame, fear of exposure, the
acceptance-rejection dynamic).
Indeed, the shadow is important for Jungian Film Studies because it helps us understand the
effect of films on people. As you write, For many, especially for men in Western industrial
societies, being surprised by emotions can be exposing. There tends to be a sense of shame in
revealing a vulnerability to being moved especially when the emotion is in reaction to events
and people with whom there is no personal connection as with a movie.
Films offer ways of sublimating of the shadow both to the people who make them and to the
audience. In the liminal darkness of the movie theatre boundaries get broken, conscious mind
gets flooded with images, the projective-introjective dynamic is set in motion and emotions
even the darkest ones are released. Left without our defences, we feel vulnerable and
exposed.
And yet film is a narrative, it has an ending, and cinematic meeting with the shadow always
entails closure. As you write, film seems to re-fragment reality so it then may make it whole
again. It fragments reality during the active phase of the viewing process but, after the movie
ends, the viewer is capable of rebuilding this reality from pieces in his or her own way, to
derive a less fragmented sense of ourselves, a coherence of identity projected into what we
see.
Even though movie watching is a collective experience, each member of the audience
customises the shadow projections to suit his or her psychological needs. The process is both
collective and personal, and, as you rightfully note, entails exposure of personal emotions in a
collective space, and therefore evokes shame and embarrassment in the individual. It entails a
certain loss of privacy something that is perceived as embarrassing in industrialised and
post-industrial societies. Is not then film viewing a post-industrial individual's way of
reuniting with the communal/collective?
- - -
I have been thinking about this metaphor: cinema as a form of psychological projection (it's
about literal projection as well, of course!). As viewers, we are receptors of someone else's
psychological contents (fantasies, ideas, etc) - including the shadow with its shame,
embarrassment and fear of rejection. In a way, in dealing with someone else's shadow, we are
also dealing with ours because the shadow has the collective aspect to it. And yet - the viewer
might feel the need to set up boundaries to protect himself from the personal aspect of the
filmmaker's shadow (such as in violent films).

Evangeline Rand: I have found your entry into film and its shadow most helpful to get me
into this field a little bit.
Firstly to be reminded, in framing the study of film, of the importance of unfettering childish
and primitive qualities that can, if enabled, embellish and vitalize human existence...and then
the possible emergence of a new self narrative and coherence...rather than there being only a
gap in consciousness a gap that otherwise only tends to bleed into coherence, and prevents
us from seeing what is in fact left out of the gap.
I appreciated your example of Jung (Red Book) in the process of changing his ATTITIDE
towards film ...moving beyond being bewitched by the banal towards an ordinary
appreciation of film being great, cheap and getting everything that happens in the world.
(This is the sort of phenomenological attitudinal change detail that is missing in the 1916
essay on The Transcendent Function.) (I must say I used to like the old news reels that one
could see before a movie. Many of us didnt have TV for the news and so this was an added
bonus!) I like Jungs new descriptions of hell you elucidate...
A man who ran up a wall, another carrying his head under his arm (like St. Denis, I am
thinking) and one who could stand in the middle of fire(like Daniel I am thinking) can be seen
as blasphemous Acta Sanctorum...and film a wonderful way to present symbols of the
collective unconscious. Your writing has prompted many creative ideas...
Your insights into The Third Man where the dark shadows run under post war Vienna
divided into four - is an important image to cut away any nave sense we might have of the
perfection of fourness. ...the loss of pity and the loss of being with death.
I would have to say that certain films have been epochal for me...films that I have had to
watch again and again because they elucidate something of myself in a broader history. And
there have been films of the devastation of war that have mirrored the devastation of deep
illness. Somehow engaging the horror is even comforting. As an accurate mirror always is
eventually!

Leslie Gardner: Thanks for this really stimulating paper. It links well with what I have been
thinking about in relation to dream being a shadow of scholarship; and here, dream as artifice
and shadow too a controlled and communal way to experience and grasp shadow.
Does reaction to cinema, - and I suppose it has to buy into popular culture, mass culture to be
affordable after all inform the critical apparatus in a more coherent way than personal
dreams do in scholarly discussion? The reactions you refer to a woman crying convulsively
at a film you and I might watch calmly is experiencing a deeply personal response. What is
this evidence of? Does it turn us back to her; she does actually think so because she recounts
deaths in her family etc. she reacted to differently so the focus is on her personal reaction in
this case. in what way does it open the door to critical analysis?and does it?
The citations from Jungs work are terrific many thanks for bringing them up but he too
seems bemused by reaction first in an elitist way, and then, upon reflection, he takes it on
board. Shadow is part unconscious, and the mores and scary images of culture, must be
deeply embedded in us to arouse the reaction cinematic producers want. so shadow is
manipulated and controlled, in a way.
I recall shakespearn and Jacobean literary scholar, Gary Taylor in his book entitled Cultural
Selection pointed out that the sheer achievement of arousing emotion in people was a mark
of the genius of a piece of writing or theatre etc at one time. critical discussion centered on its
success in that regard, We wonder if thats the case now and I really like your image of the
gaps in the fragmented image as viewers we are not really aware of this but it is a symbol of
the artifice.
How much, in conclusion, is affect important in critical discussion of cinema fitting into my
wondering whether dreams, which are as personal as affect is, are shadows of scholarship. ?

Elizabeth Brodersen: I am particularly interested in your view that 'shadow' emotions
constellate in the darkness of the cinema, where in that darkness, itself, such emotions can
be assimilated and accepted... One aspect that you mention in your paper but did not elaborate
on further is the film characterisation of the vampire. I'd like to develop that here, if I may, as
a 'shadow' personification of unacceptable, 'inferior,' unredeemed emotions such as anger,
betrayal and abandonment, hidden away in the darkness, out of sight. One could say that the
vampire has no mirror image and personifies non-ego aspects which have become soul-less,
disassociated and 'taboo.' I was wondering whether the current intense interest in the vampire
in various film and television series reveals a more pressing individual and collective need,
hunger even, to address such 'unacceptable' soul-less, 'taboo' emotions than for example, fifty
years ago, and have them accepted? I have noticed that the vampire image and narrative
history for both sexes have become more complex and sympathetic, for example, as shown in
Coppola's marvellous film version of Bran Stoker's Dracula, where Dracula, as a romantic
sufferer, openly challenges a too narrow concept of Christian salvation and is prepared to
suffer 'damnation' for earthly love rather than submit to a too narrow definition
of absolution. Could this reflect our own changing attitudes towards questioning authority
which is becoming more acceptable on an individual level but still carries a 'shadow' taint of
collective damnation? I feel this dilemma is becoming more conscious and differentiated
through the vampire as 'shadow' projection in film.
I have also noticed a connection between the vampire in individual dreams and film. In the
case of individual dreams, analysands who are prepared to dialogue with the vampire as a
unconscious image of their own intense, ambivalent emotions, dream that a vampire is
entering into their house at night through a half open window. This opening of attitude seems
to be reflected in the recent popular portrayal of the vampire as projection in recent films such
as the Twillight films featuring the books of Stephani Meyers.

Luke Hockley: To play with metaphors for the psychological aspects of cinematic apparatus
alongside projection I want to introduce 'screen'. I am writing about this in my next book
(Somatic Cinema). There I go into this in some deal but in summary in the cinema the screen
makes something visible (the results of projection) but to screen also means to protect from
something - as in sunscreen, fire screen or screening for a disease. So cinema both offers the
possibility of encounter and also protects against it. It doesn't necessarily make it safe, or
positive as it is possible to screen on racial, political and socioeconomic factors - screening
can mean discrimination - plenty of examples of that in cinema. The origins of the word
screen are in scrim - a shield that protects from heat, or fire. A sight screen in cricket is
something that brings the play into relief - it brings greater clarity to what is going on for the
players. Finally a screen is also something that divides a space (what lies beyond the cinema
screen?). So a screen both displays and hides, and it reveals and protects.

Helena Bassil-Morozow: I agree that screen is a really good metaphor for the boundary
against unwanted projections. One still feels protected even though some of the images
projected onto the screen (and onto the audience) can be violent and powerful = really
shadowy. One feels protected if one bears in mind the division between fantasy and reality -
i.e., between what is happening on screen and outside the cinema, in real life. In this way one
can also discern the difference between the collective and the personal elements of the
projection. The presence of the screen guarantees that the crossing of the liminal boundary
into the unconscious remains imaginary. Great idea, Luke.
- - -
Yes, I agree that close-ups of the face is a powerful device precisely because it enhances
projection and ensures its immediacy. In fact, it is a form of synecdochic projection -
influencing the viewer by emphasizing the most expressive part of the body. And, as Chris
points out, this goes back to the idea of psychological fragmentation (because the face IS a
visual synechdoche). Yet, this device in cinematic narratives also conveys the idea of
wholeness because the face is emotional, expressive and alive. It is, as Chris says, 'a
revelation of the inner person'.

Mark Saban: But 'seriously', I only want to suggest that every medium brings with it its own
shadow, within which the worst examples of its form perform their worst crimes against taste
and, more importantly, feeling. I love a shoot-em-up gore-fest as much as the next man, and
salting my popcorn with tears has often enabled a welcome discharge of pent-up angst, but
cinema which offers nice manageable emotional release, can very easily become a kind of
sentimental pornography enabling a kind of masturbation of the passions (and best of all on
my own in the dark!). In such cases we are never out of control, and never surprised by our
emotions, because everybody knows that this is exactly what film is supposed to do, and has
been doing very successfully for a hundred years.

Christopher Hauke: Yes that Screen metaphor is very handy - it reminds me of what I am
saying about the Face in movies and in life in another chapter of the book. The face and the
close-up have been a hallmark of what cinema brought to our gaze from the silent era onward.
The face can fill the screen and obliterate all context which was baffling for the early viewers
of cinema. It could appear disembodied and terrifying - just like any body part in close up in
the first days of watching silent film. Now we are used to this dismemberment of the body on
the screen, but stories were not told like this before film - drawing our attention so vividly to
parts to weave a whole.
But the main point I wanted to flag about the face is that - as you say of the screen - the face
can both reveal and conceal too. You could say the internal thought is the shadow of the facial
expression as much as the face is a revelation of the inner person. Actors in film have taken
advantage of this in both directions. The smallest movement of a facial muscle speaks in film
where it could not in theatre. But the trick is to exclude all the other clues. Like Mark writes,
the shadow of the technique of film is what it does not express, what is not in focus (maybe
hence everyone's love of the shallow depth of field as the signifier of the 'film look'). What it
'chooses' not to express - whether it is aware of that choice or not. Some unawareness of the
choice of exclusion can arise simply out of genre - what fits and what doesn't. Other choices
are far more political and at worst amount to propaganda. Thanks for enjoying the paper.

Stephani Stephens: I just wanted to make a brief comment regarding the explosive
popularity of the Twilight films and most recently The Hunger Games, both having been
adapted from books, which were originally written for the Young Adult market. The
emergence of such films, and what could be considered a burgeoning market of distopian
literature, calls into question the perceived need that adolescents have for themes of
competition, loss, despair and triumph. Does the popularity of the genre indicate that
adolescents can be seen, in light of our discussion here, as shadowing the older generation
and encountering distopia anticipates coming to terms with the adult roles that they will
eventually assume?
Recently, when teaching gifted youth, I was amazed at the prevalence if not obsessive
consumption of such books and films. When I asked a colleague what is it about these types
of books and films that has gripped these kids? he answered, This is where the moral issues
of our day are being played out, for them. This stuck me as important, and a place to keep a
watchful eye in terms of what youth are learning about themselves and their world through
such content. Just a thought.

IV
The fourth presenter is Phil Goss, Jungian analyst, academic and author. His paper is
about the shadow in education.
Phil's paper shows how 'shadow' in education carries with it the whiff of failure: students who
fail, teachers who fail to teach successfully and schools which fail to meet the superlative
standards set by governments. Within this dynamic of inadequacy lies subcultures of 'shadow'
often associated with learning difficulties and the assignation of what is 'special' and
sometimes intolerable behaviours. It is in the realm of the archetypal ascriptions of failure in
education that 'shadow' at least offers us different narratives of what it means to be 'outside'
the norm. Phil's presentation explores how this disassociated 'shadow' phenomena can be read
in relation to and have a bearing on our own failings, academic and otherwise.
Phil is a Jungian Analyst (AJA, London) with a private practice in the Lancaster area
(Northern England) and Senior Lecturer for Counselling and Psychotherapy at the University
of Central Lancashire. Previously, Phil taught and managed in special schools in London
where he developed a strong interest in the emotional dimension of learning for children and
young people with learning difficulties and their families. This interest is reflected in his
publications, such as his chapter in the edited collection Education and Imagination: Jungian
Approaches (Routledge, 2008) and Meaning-led Learning for pupils with severe and
profound and multiple learning difficulties (British Journal for Special Education, 2006).
Gender is his other strong interest, reflected in the focus for his book: Men, Women and
Relationships, A Post-Jungian Approach: Gender Electrics and Magic Beans
(Routledge,2010) and other publications such as Discontinuities in the male psyche: waiting,
deadness and disembodiment, Archetypal and clinical approaches (Journal for Analytical
Psychology, 2006) and a chapter on the presence of gendered influences in the psyche in
Dreaming the Myth Onwards (Routledge 2008). The following paper is a brief working up of
ideas presented in Phil's chapter 'Learning Difficulties: Shadow of the Education System?' (
2008) and from his paper ( unpublished) given a the IAJS conference in Cardiff ( 2009) '
More than we can bear: Schools and the archetype of failure.'



Learning and Shadow: Failure awaits us
by Phil Goss
'We refuse to fail
5boJow ln educaLlon carrles wlLh lL Lhe whlff of fallure - sLudenLs who fall, Leachers who fall
Lo Leach successfully, and schools and colleges whlch fall Lo meeL Lhe superlaLlve sLandards
seL by governmenLs. WlLhln Lhls dynamlc of lnadequacy Lhere lle subculLures of sboJow,
ofLen assoclaLed wlLh learnlng dlfflculLles, Lhe asslgnaLlon of whaL ls 'speclal', and someLlmes
'lnLolerable' behavlours . lL ls ln Lhe archeLypal ascrlpLlons of fallure ln educaLlon LhaL
sboJow aL leasL offers dlfferenL narraLlves of whaL lL means Lo be 'ouLslde' Lhe norm. 1he
!unglan emphasls on sboJow offers rouLes lnLo self-awareness and lndlvlduaLlon whlch can
brlng a dlfferenL flavour Lo Lhe posslblllLles opened up by 'learnlng Lhrough falllng' and l wlll
explore how Lhls can be read ln relaLlon Lo bearlng our own falllngs, academlc and
oLherwlse.
Pow mlghL sboJow lnfluence our experlences of, and aLLlLudes Lowards, learnlng? 1o approach Lhls quesLlon l wanL lnlLlally Lo dellneaLe
whaL we mlghL lnclude wlLhln Lhe noLlon of 'learnlng'. llrsL Lhls musL lnevlLably lnclude learnlng as offered and experlenced ln schools and
oLher Leachlng lnsLlLuLlons such as colleges and unlverslLles. !ung blunLly capLures Lhe apparenLly unavoldable naLure of learnlng ln lLs
collecLlve form when he wroLe: 'CollecLlve learnlng ls lndeed a necesslLy and cannoL be replaced by anyLhlng else.' (!ung, 1923, cw 17:
ara. 236). AlLhough here !ung ls referrlng more Lo lmparLlng 'rules, prlnclples and meLhods' (op clL: ara 234), l would argue LhaL lL ls
formal educaLlonal seLLlngs where Lhese geL LransmlLLed as parL of a collectlve learnlng experlence more Lhan anywhere else.
More broadly - whlle parenLs who are passlonaLe abouL Lhe vlrLues of home-schoollng mlghL Lake lssue wlLh Lhls - Lhe reallLy ls LhaL soclal
convenLlon and coheslon would seem Lo requlre aL leasL a degree of commonallLy ln educaLlonal experlence, LransmlLLlng knowledge, skllls
and values vla a relaLlvely homogenous currlculum, as a sLandard requlremenL for all chlldren, however dlversely Lhls can be offered. 8uL,
Lhls very commonallLy of expecLaLlon and experlence seems Lo be a powerful conLrlbuLory facLor Lo Lhe acLlvaLlon of sboJow ln schools and
oLher formal learnlng envlronmenLs, as lL seLs up a dynamlc of comparlson and even compeLlLlveness beLween learners whlch plays lnLo
our lndlvldual vulnerablllLles wlLh learnlng of a more academlc, or vocaLlonal, and naLure.
Powever, learnlng can also refer, ln lLs wlder appllcaLlons, Lo Lhe 'learnlng [ourney' of Lhe lndlvldual person Lhrough llfe, as she / he geLs Lo
know and undersLand Lhemselves and Lhe world around Lhem. 1hls provldes a perspecLlve on learnlng as drlver and funcLlon of
lndlvlduaLlon, whlch ln Lurn '..lnvolves Lhe achlevemenL of an opLlmum synLhesls of one's consclous and unconsclous processes..' (Cordon,
1993: 379). lL Lhus provldes a wlder deflnlLlon of learnlng as a way of 'becomlng' compared Lo more dldacLlc and LargeL-drlven educaLlonal
noLlons of learnlng as havlng speclflc goals of academlc aLLalnmenL or vocaLlonal skllls compeLency (bttp.
//www.eJocotloo.qov.ok/vocobolotles/ eJocotlootetmsooJtoqs/164J). lL also flLs more convenLlonally lnLo a !unglan framework where
learnlng ls parL and parcel of Lhe mulLl-faceLed work ln progress of human 'belng', lncludlng sboJow work whlch helps us accepL lessons ln
llfe whlch are palnful and hard won.
llnally Lhere ls also someLhlng abouL our capaclLy Lo 'learn LogeLher' whlch l Lhlnk needs Lo be lncluded here. 1hls refers Lo how we derlve
shared, collecLlve undersLandlngs and lnslghLs from common experlence, or from Lhe revelaLory dlscoverles of lnsplred lndlvlduals (or
lnnovaLory groups of people) whose ldeas galn a wlde consensus of accepLance and appreclaLlon. 1hls shared dlmenslon Lo learnlng
sLraddles boLh Lhe flrsL and second verslons of learnlng above ln LhaL Lhls Lends Lo be learnlng vla osmosls: we ofLen plck up on blg ldeas
llke evoluLlon, psychoanalysls or quanLum physlcs because Lhey are deemed as belng generally 'lmporLanL' by Lhe culLural conLexL ln whlch
we grow up, relnforclng Lhe ways we are LaughL abouL such ldeas ln school and hlgher educaLlon: a klnd of sllenL oracle ln Lhe collecLlve
whlch wlnks aL us Lo geL our aLLenLlon and Lhen polnLs ouL whaL we need Lo know (or whaL we need Lo google a qulck deflnlLlon of..?), lf we
are Lo Lake our place effecLlvely enough ln Lhe world.
lor Lhe purposes of Lhls dlscusslon l wanL Lo argue LhaL learnlng ln Lhe flrsL, formally educaLlonal sense ls a klnd of magneL for sboJow, ln
LhaL lnsLlLuLlonallsed learnlng has a rlgorously esLabllshed hlerarchy ln whlch success (good exam resulLs, good marks, good reporLs, good
feedback from Leacher) ls always beLLer Lhan fallure (poor exam resulLs and marks, dlsappolnLlng reporLs, crlLlcal feedback from Leacher).
AL leasL, success ls always beLLer on paper, Lhe ublqulLous bellef LhaL we learn more from our mlsLakes and fallures abounds ln wesLern
culLure, alLhough Lelllng ourselves or oLhers Lhls ls Lrue can also serve as a way of amelloraLlng Lhe dlscomforL and dlsappolnLmenL arlslng
from noL maklng Lhe grade.
WhaL remalns clear ls LhaL Lhe esLabllshed ways of Leachlng and assesslng learners - schoollng for example - ls ofLen flercely rellanL on Lhe
presence of Lhe specLre of fallure ln order Lo susLaln Lhe drlve Lowards 'success'. upll achlevemenL ls Lhe tolsoo Jette behlnd schoollng
sysLems across of Lhe world, and one could say LhaL Lhose who fall Lo hlL Lhe LargeLs seL for Lhem, fall behlnd ln Lhelr learnlng Lo a
slgnlflcanL degree, or who do noL geL Lhe grades requlred Lo progress on Lo college or unlverslLy fall lnLo Lhe realm of sboJow where Lhey
wlll experlence 'Lhe Lhlng a person has no wlsh Lo be.' (!ung, 1946: ara. 470) - afLer all who wanLs Lo be labelled as havlng falled, or Lo
experlence Lhe feellngs assoclaLed wlLh havlng falled?
My lnLeresL ln Lhls obvlous - buL Lroubllng because lL ls obvlous - quesLlon exLends beyond Lhe way we seem Lo need Lhe sboJow of fallure
and low achlevemenL ln our educaLlonal sysLem ln order Lo experlence Lhe warm glow of success when we achleve well. 1he fleld of
'speclal educaLlonal needs' as Lermed ln Lhe uk (lrederlckson n & Cllne 1., 2009) ln lLself can someLlmes seem Lo represenL a psychologlcal
aLLempL Lo cover up, or even ellmlnaLe Lhe sboJow of low aLLalnmenL and fallure whlch we secreLly seem Lo need Lo malnLaln Lhe equaLlon
descrlbed above. 1hls can feel dlsLurblng ln Lhe same way LhaL !ung wrlLes abouL how one generaLlon may keep messy LruLhs from Lhe
nexL, so LhaL: '1he repressed problems, and Lhe sufferlng . . .fraudulenLly avolded, secreLe an lnsldlous polson whlch seeps lnLo Lhe soul . . .
Lhrough Lhe LhlckesL wall of sllence and Lhrough Lhe whlLed sepulchres of decelL, complacency, and evaslon.' (!ung 1934: ara. 134). Such
shadow conLamlnaLlon, passed on, could be sald Lo happen wlLhln commonly held aLLlLudes Lo learnlng and fallure, when we cannoL see
and own our hang ups abouL low educaLlonal aLLalnmenL.
Cn Lhe oLher hand Lhe 'speclal-ness' lnLlmaLed here may allude Lo Lhe presence of someLhlng real. Pere one of !ung's formulaLlons for
sboJow ls helpful, where he noLes LhaL: '.Lhe shadow ls merely somewhaL lnferlor, prlmlLlve, unadapLed, and awkward, noL wholly bad. lL
conLalns chlldlsh or prlmlLlve quallLles whlch would ln a way vlLallze and embelllsh human exlsLence, buL - convenLlon forblds". (!ung, 1938.
CW 11 para.134). 1hls awareness LhaL Lhere may be someLhlng 'prlmlLlve' buL whlch has Lhe poLenLlal Lo enrlch 'malnsLream' learnlng and
reallLy whlch operaLes Lhrough sboJow also seems Lo lle underneaLh Lhe Lendency descrlbed Lo call chlldren wlLh learnlng dlfflculLles
'speclal' .
8uL, by maklng learnlng dlfflculLles ln Lhe uk educaLlonal sysLem 'speclal', Lhere ls a sense ln whlch we wanL Lo have our cake and eaL lL: we
wanL Lhose who teolly sLruggle Lo learn, and have a 'good reason' for Lhls, l.e. Lhose wlLh Lhe more severe learnlng dlfflculLles whlch relaLe
Lo consLlLuLlonal neurologlcal or oLher obsLacles, Lo be seen as 'speclal' (Coss, 2008). Cn Lhe oLher hand, we prefer Lo see lnadequacles ln
more malnsLream educaLlonal aLLalnmenL as 'fallure' and as someLhlng whlch should noL be LoleraLed. 1hls laLLer aLLlLude has deepened
lnLo an embedded phllosophy ln Lhe uk. 1he schools lnspecLlon body, Lhe Cfflce for SLandards ln LducaLlon (CfsLed) has a long esLabllshed
brlef Lo rooL ouL 'school fallure'. lL has a repuLaLlon for 'namlng and shamlng' schools whlch are noL good enough and generally Laklng no
prlsoners, a recenL survey conflrmed LhaL Lhe clear ma[orlLy of head Leachers ln Lngland fear for Lhelr [obs when Lhe lnspecLors come Lo call
(1LS, 2012), someLhlng l found ln my own earller research (Coss, 2008).
Pere, Lhe schools, Lhelr PeadLeachers and Leachers can fall lnLo Lhe Laboo sboJow of school fallure, an uncanny parallel Lo Lhe Laboo of
pupll fallure, where Lhere also seems Lo be a shadowy wlsh Lo 'punlsh Leacher'. 1eachers of course are Lhe recepLacles for all sorLs of
pro[ecLlons and ldenLlflcaLlons from puplls, parenLs and Lhe publlc aL large. 1hese can Lake Lhe form of belng blamed for educaLlonal
fallure, sLandards of respecL and dlsclpllne, and even Lhe coheslveness of socleLy aL large. As chlldren, aL leasL lnlLlally, we boLh fear and
ldeallse Leachers, as Lhey come Lo represenL aspecLs of our parenLs or prlmary carers LhaL we say goodbye Lo when Lhey drop us off ln Lhe
playground.
lnevlLably, Leachers - however skllled and carlng - leL us down from Llme Lo Llme, llke our parenLs do, whaL Plllman (1973: 1-2) refers Lo as
Lhe beLrayal of: '.prlmal LrusL, presenLed as Lhe archeLypal lmage of Lden,.(and).repeaLed ln lndlvldual llves of chlld and parenL'. As we
move from chlldhood Lo adulLhood we unconsclously reLaln Lhese feellngs of dlsappolnLmenL, or someLlmes of blLLerness, dependlng on
how we well we were LaughL and LreaLed by Lhem. Pere sboJow pro[ecLlon can klck ln as we unconsclously pro[ecL our own feellngs of
fallure or even vlcLlmlsaLlon, by 'klcklng Leacher', or even Lhe headLeacher who ls supposed Lo embody an ldeallsed parenLal capaclLy Lo
boLh look afLer a huge 'famlly' of chlldren and young people as well as provlde Lhelr rouLe Lo achlevemenL.
jNote. l tblok tbot wbeteos lo some otbet cooottles tbete seems to be o tespectfol,
sometlmes qtotefol ottltoJe towotJs tbe teocbloq ptofessloo, lo tbe uk tbls seems mocb less
tbe cose Joe, petbops, to o bletotcblcol, somewbot lotoletoot, stteok lo 8tltlsb coltote ooJ lts
lostltotloos wblcb coooot beot follote, follote wblcb ls feJ by oot owo coofoseJ feelloqs oboot
teocbets. l woolJ be lotetesteJ to beot oboot bow tbls ploys oot lo otbet cooottles, ooJ bow
tbose wltb leotoloq Jlfflcoltles ote teqotJeJ ooJ tbe tetmlooloqy opplleJ to tbem).
So, sboJow hovers sLrongly ln Lhe background Lo schoollng where Lhe Lendency Lo spllL beLween success and fallure has a famlllar and
uncomforLably prlmlLlve feel Lo lL (kleln, 1946): we geL paranold abouL our own fallure, or feellng responslble for LhaL of Lhose ln our care,
so we'd raLher noL Lhlnk abouL lL . Arrlvlng aL a reallsLlc, or depresslve, poslLlon would lnvolve accepLlng Lhe sboJow of our falllngs ln
school, even embraclng our learnlng dlfflculLles as belng parL of who we are. 1o brlng Lhls polnL home l suggesL Lhose engaged ln Lhls
dlscusslon reflecL on some aspecL of Lhelr learnlng or skllls whlch ls weak and conslder (Lhough wlLh no obllgaLlon Lo share on Lhe llsL
obvlously) how Lhey have dealL wlLh Lhe presence of Lhls.
An example l can share ls my own dlfflculLy wlLh pracLlcal learnlng Lasks and wlLh whlch requlre flne moLor skllls and hand Lo eye
coordlnaLlon. l now recognlse l have a mlld form of dyspraxla, as my ablllLy Lo manlpulaLe Lools, say, or coordlnaLe my arms and legs (l
never goL pasL a forward roll ln .L.!) can be faulLy and awkward. 1hls was a glarlng source of anxleLy for me as a pupll, e.g. maklng a mess
of bulldlng a slmple elecLrlcal clrculL ln a Lechnology lesson aL school - someLhlng l remember Lrylng Lo cover up by dellberaLely breaklng a
componenL so l could blame LhaL, or geLLlng a sympaLheLlc class maLe Lo compleLe Lhe clrculL for me. 1hls example ls a remlnder LhaL
sboJow ln educaLlon can ofLen be abouL shame - l.e. belng seen by oLhers: Leachers, peers, parenLs, Lo have falled becomes more
lmporLanL Lhan Lhe fallure lLself. 1he lnfluence of Lhls formula ls ofLen why lL ls so dlfflculL Lo accepL, or even embrace, Lhe sboJow of
falllngs and learnlng dlfflculLles ln our own experlence of organlsed learnlng, wheLher aL school or ln adulL educaLlon. lf sboJow becomes
Lhe reposlLory for fallure, where fallure ls 'whaL we are' buL we would prefer noL Lo acknowledge lL, or for lL Lo be exposed Lo Lhe gaze of
oLhers, Lhen lL can be argued LhaL sboJow provldes access Lo Lhe archeLype of fallure. 1hls ls lmporLanL as lL exposes us Lo a cholce - elLher
Lo Lry Lo deny or hlde our fallures, or Lo consclously do someLhlng producLlve wlLh fallure.
As Andrew Samuels puLs lL: 'lallure ls a core elemenL of good-enough-ness' (2001: 79). lallure ls an archeLypal human experlence and lL
slLs aL one end of a conLlnuum across from success/achlevemenL aL Lhe oLher. 8elng 'good enough' ls locaLed somewhere on Lhls
conLlnuum, probably [usL Lo one slde of Lhe mld-polnL, nearer success Lhan fallure, llke a sLudenL who [usL does enough ln an exam Lo geL
Lhe pass mark only: Lhe polnL where sboJow has nearly had Lhe sLudenL ln lLs grasp, buL noL qulLe.
Andrew also wrlLes LhaL 'ulsappolnLmenL ls dlfflculL Loo, for sure. 8uL lL Loo, has Lo be
managed' (2001: 3). Alongslde success and achlevemenL ln schools and colleges, Lhe
managemenL of fallure, and Lhe dlsappolnLmenL and oLher feellngs whlch can be evoked by
Lhls, need Lo be acknowledged and worked Lhrough, or Lhey wlll fesLer ln sboJow, wlLh Lhe
slgnlflcanL rlsk LhaL Lhere wlll be dlfflculL consequences vla undlgesLed feellngs of
dlsappolnLmenL, shame, anger and beLrayal, for Lhose who are sLruggllng Lo bear Lhelr
falllngs, or Lhose of oLhers.
1he llne beLween success and fallure ln formal educaLlon ls ofLen a Lhln one, a percenLage
here and Lhere elLher slde of Lhe pass mark, and yeL psychologlcally lL can represenL so
much: Lhe llne beLween 'good enough' or 'noL good enough, beLween accepLance and
re[ecLlon, and beLween belonglng or belng casL ouL. 1hls parLlng of Lhe ways encapsulaLes
Lhe dlsorlenLaLlng power of our relaLlonshlp wlLh sboJow aL lLs mosL poLenL - Lhe Lerror of
belng ouLslde Lhe gaLes of Lhe heavenly clLy of Lhe academlcally and soclally valued . ln Lhls
sense Lhe archeLype of fallure seems Lo be fed by Lhe baser lnsLlncLs of sboJow - Lhe
prlmlLlve fear of belng [udged as unaccepLable and of no use Lo Lhe famlly, Lrlbe or wlder
communlLy. Agaln Lhls seems Lo operaLe vla a fear of belng seeo as Lhose Lhlngs, so Lhe
lnLlmaLlons of shame engendered by Lhls posslblllLy someLlmes may drlve us Lo do all we can
Lo avold fallure.

1o conc|ude: now we dea| w|th the !"#$%& st|ng of 'fa||ure'

1o counLerbalance Lhls problem generaLed by Lhe challenges of formal learnlng and Lhe
blnarles generaLed by lL (success-fallure / accepLance - re[ecLlon and so on) l suggesL we
Lend Lo do Lwo Lhlngs. Cne l have already Louched upon: Lo ldenLlfy lndlvlduals and groups
whose fallure becomes a vlrLue wlLh whlch we can ldenLlfy. Chlldren, young people and
lndeed adulLs wlLh severe learnlng dlfflculLles provlde a verslon of fallure whlch amelloraLes
our sboJow Lerror of lL because Lhelr fallure cannoL be Lhelr faulL, havlng ofLen been born
wlLh Lhe congenlLal facLors whlch have generaLed Lhe learnlng dlfflculLles ln Lhe flrsL place.
Pere, learnlng dlfflculLy acLs as a soulful balm whlch boLh makes us feel beLLer abouL our
own sboJow lnadequacles ln learnlng and remlnds us LhaL our success and fallure ls never
compleLely ln our own hands. Pence Lhe way Lhose worklng wlLh chlldren and young people
wlLh speclal needs ln schools can flnd Lhemselves ldenLlfylng wlLh boLh Lhe pllghL and Lhe
'speclalness' of Lhese puplls' slLuaLlons (?ouell, 2006: 97), or Lhe way Lhere can even seem Lo
be a klnd of veneraLlon for Lhe mosL learnlng dlsabled and Lhose who supporL Lhem, or Lhose
who work wlLh puplls who dlsplay Lhe mosL challenglng behavlours (Coss, 2008a: 43).
Secondly, and llnked Lo Lhls, we consLrucL our own narraLlves abouL Lhe learnlng [ourneys we
have been on ln llfe ln order Lo boLh remlnd ourselves LhaL a loL of our mosL lmporLanL
experlences of learnlng have been ouLslde formal educaLlonal conLexLs, as well as Lo
amelloraLe Lhe problem of personal fallure whlch we all experlence ln some form or oLher as
we go Lhrough llfe. Pere !ung's model for lndlvlduaLlon ln-parL addresses Lhe problem of
sboJow 's grlp on us when we experlence 'fallure' ln a learnlng Lask. 8y suggesLlng LhaL Lhls ls
acLually parL of a necessary process ln whlch our lnferlor funcLlons and whaL l would Lerm as
our 'learnlng vulnerablllLles' are encounLered, and someLlmes palnfully exposed ln fronL of
oLhers, Lhls formulaLlon porLrays fallure as a poLenLlal growLhful sLep Lowards boLh psychlc
lnLegraLlon and self-accepLance.
1he problem l suggesL we are sLlll lefL wlLh seems Lo be embedded aL a collecLlve level -
why, when grouped LogeLher as learners ln formal learnlng envlronmenLs, parLlcularly as
chlldren aL school buL also ln our relaLlonshlp Lo school as parenLs and carers, as well as
Leachers and pollLlclans, do we geL grlpped by Lhe fear of fallure, and Lhe fear of belng seeo
Lo have falled? (ln hlgher educaLlon Lhls also operaLes, buL l would say Lo a less pervaslve
degree, conslderlng Lhe achlevemenL of geLLlng Lhere ln Lhe flrsL place..?). l would say Lhls ls
because, ln Lhe rapld move Lowards Lhe greaL achlevemenL of Lhe (almosL) unlversal offer of
educaLlon Lo our chlldren ln wesLern socleLles over Lhe lasL 130 years or so - fuelled aL Llmes
by a klnd of bobtls (Zo[a, 1993) - we have sLruggled Lo accepL Lhe posslblllLy LhaL we mlghL,
lndlvldually, fall aL any glven momenL ln any glven Lask. Pere, our lndlvldual sboJow grlps us
whenever Lhe collecLlve demand Lo succeed consLellaLes ln our schools, whlch aL Lhe
momenL ls preLLy much every day of Lhe week.
'1be sboJow conLalns, besldes Lhe personal shadow, Lhe shadow of socleLy ... fed by Lhe
neglecLed and repressed collecLlve values' (lordham, 1978: 3).

keferences

lordham M. (1978): Iooqloo lsycbotbetopy (Avon)
lrederlckson n & Cllne 1. (2009): 5peclol Jocotloool NeeJs. loclosloo ooJ ulvetslty
(8ucks.Curess)
Coss . (2008): Learnlng ulfflculLles: sboJow ln our educaLlon sysLem? ln !ones 8., Clarkson
A., Congram S. and SLraLLon n. (2008): Jocotloo ooJ lmoqlootloo, lost-Iooqloo letspectlves
(London, 8ouLledge)
Coss . (2008): Ao lovestlqotloo loto tbe posslble ptessotes oo neoJteocbets - pottlcolotly tbe
cotteot scbool lospectloo ottooqemeots lo oqlooJ ooJ woles - ooJ tbe poteotlol lmpoct oo
tectoltmeot. (naLlonal AssoclaLlon of PeadLeachers / uCLan, unpubllshed)
Plllman !. (1973): '8eLrayal' ln loose oJs (Sprlng)
!ung C.C. (1924): Aoolytlcol lsycboloqy ooJ Jocotloo ln CW vol.17
!ung C.C. (1923): 1be 5lqolflcooce of tbe uocooscloos lo loJlvlJool Jocotloo ln CW vol.17
!ung C.C. (1938): lsycboloqy ooJ kellqloo ln CW vol. 11
kleln, M. (1946): noLes on Some Schlzold Mechanlsms. lot. I. lsycbo-Aool., 27:99-110.
Samuels A. (2009): 1ransformlng Aggresslve ConfllcL ln ollLlcal and ersonal ConLexLs lot. I. ApplleJ lsycboooolytlc 5toJles 6(0).000-000
(2009) www.lotetscleoce.wlley.com
1lmes LducaLlonal SupplemenL/ASLC ( 2012): PeadLeacher Survey 2010 resulLs ( London, news lnLernaLlonal apers) 30/3/12
?ouell 8. (2006): 1be leotoloq telotloosblp. lsycboooolytlc 1blokloq lo Jocotloo (London,
1avlsLock)
Zo[a L. (1993): Ctowtb ooJ Collt. lsycboloqy ooJ tbe llmlts of Jevelopmeot (London,
8ouLledge)

IV) Discussion. Comments, questions and answers.
Elizabeth Brodersen: I was wondering whether you think that school performance in terms
of success or failure is influenced by the open-ness of teachers towards the fear of risk-taking
that could play a role as to whether children succeed or fail? I'm thinking of John Holt's book
How Children Fail (1964/1990: 263) where he suggests that no child starts off in life as
'stupid' but that school, itself, promotes stupidity and a sense of failure. He argues that most
children come to school curious, but that fear of failure itself which is inculcated by school
standards of 'right' and 'wrong' soon blunts their curiosity and this experience plays a major
role in dampening their intellectual and creative curiosity. Holt also suggests that by
standardising and homogenising the academic results expected of children, we make
them frightened of mistakes and exploring unknown territory. Instead children are given dull,
repetitive tasks which simultaneously scare, confuse and bore them( Ibid: 275-76).
Obviously, children have to be educated, but I think how learning is transmitted, whether it is
successful or not, rests with the constructive enthusiasm that the teacher her/himself has
towards knowledge, whether it is open or closed. Holt maintains that he would have been
frightened of teaching and probably imparted that relational quality about knowledge on to his
pupils, had he not travelled, taken risks, experienced and overcome some of life's
real challenges first, before standing in front of a classroom. Jung ( 1939, CW 17, The
Development of Personality. paras: 284-288) maintains that the personality of the teacher is
crucial; children are not stupid but can tell the difference between what is genuine and what is
not ( para: 286).
I'm sure not sure whether it is 'fear of failure' that is the 'shadow' of education but rather the
fear of 'risk-taking' which breeds more fear and dampens intellectual curiosity by packaging
knowledge into safe, pedagogic structures that are not always suited to developing the child's
natural vitality. That some children refuse to fail despite such disenchantment, one could
argue, shows both courage and stubbornness- both good qualities!- in the face of adversity.

Phil M Goss: Thank you for posing such an interesting question as to whether shadow in
schools is more about a fear of risk - taking, than a fear of failure. One could characterise your
suggestion as portraying an avoidance of the opportunity to fully live, and instead to place
eros in cold storage, in order to avoid a supposedly worse fate, which may well be a fantasy
(eg of being labelled as 'stupid', or of losing any chance of attaining one's goals in the future),
but also may have some reality to it. Yet, as you imply, is this fate about the child or the
teacher? If children are not seen to be doing well then their teacher can expect to have their
knowledge, their skills, even their character brought into question. I encountered this a
number of times when in positions of responsibility in schools - parents coming to me and
questioning the capability, even the integrity, of their child's teacher when things were not
going well for their child. However, as you suggest, teachers have to be prepared to take risks
sometimes to open up possibilities for their pupils, including the risk of trusting in an intuition
that a pupil will 'come good', in the midst of otherwise dire predictions about the
latter's future.
As far as shadow is concerned in the individual learning relationships a teacher and pupil
strike up, I would agree with you that the spark of self-belief and tenacity which characterises
the individuated capacity to make something good happen in the face of negative feedback or
dissillusion is crucial. It means that the experience of falling into a kind of shadowy
uncertainty about whether 'I am good enough' after failing an exam or getting critical
feedback from a teacher can be used as a basis for confronting that which 'a person has no
wish to be' (Jung 1946). Failiing a piece of work at school or college can, within the context
of a strong relationship with a good teacher, act as a turning point where what may be hidden
by shadow in the individual learner gets released, via a breakthrough in awareness and
determination. This is all good stuff, grist to the mill for the individuation process, a template
for the challenge to integrate shadow , one could say...
Nevertheless I am left with the point I pondered in my paper: why is it that collectively,
education - particularly in schools - seems to rely on such a visceral focus on the success vs
failure equation? The perception seems to be that this is the only way of maintaining and
improving standards, and yet it is not unreasonable to suggest that this rather unconscious
reliance on upholding this split can lead to swathes of young people ending up outside the
mainstream of educational progress, even of society. There are, after all, many who do not
stand up again easily after experiencing being labelled as 'not good enough' academically.
When shadow emerges through the constellation of the archetype of failure in the individual
schooling experience of a child, and the right support is not available from the adults around
her or him, then my sense is that the collective fear of failure, generated by a consonant
collective constellation of the archetype ('our children must not fail') can infect the struggle of
the individual learner. Then, the shadow fear of risk-taking you allude to, which in turn is
about the fear of failure if the risk backfires, can take over.
My argument suggests that there is a gravitational pull in schools towards failure because
unconsciously we may be seeking it out. This could be because the idealisation of
'achievement for all', via universal target setting, is unhelpfully unrealistic and does not allow
for enough diversity of experiences of 'success' and 'failure'. This, as I suggested in my paper
is why shadow has a field day in schools - the more monolithic the definition of success and
achievement, the more charged is the scramble to escape failure and to avoid becoming who
we do not want to be. It is teachers as much as pupils who are scrambling to avoid this. Holt's
model for teachers - to do what they need to do to free up their risk-taking capacity before
they stand in front of a class and model a pro-active approach to life and learning- is a strong
recipe for countering this. However, I suggest there is something in the conscious allure of
success for schools which cannot avoid but generate a compensatory unconscious draw
towards failure, and this can make the challenge for the creative teacher, and the determined
child, all the more stark.

Leslie Gardner: You associate shadow (and failure) with collectivity and yet we are more
often focused on shadow as it relates to individual interconnections. There is shadow on
individual level operating in schools too, as you suggest some teachers and students just
dont get on, is that about their dark sides projecting and rubbing up against each other
somehow? And failures between individuals involve this aspect, but in the collectivity, they
involve universal criteria reaching into societys expectations (which you suggest).
In some ways a critique of Jungian psychology is its emphasis on the therapeutic qualities of
adaptation and here you are proposing a solution do I get this right?
Its a critique because we instinctively object to childrens (or adults) being required to fit in.
we think this is stifling.
But maybe education is just about fitting in to society and we make our conclusions as
students whether and how either to fit in or not in our societies. So I see that
We accept shadow on individual level as a part of learning process, but, in collective
institutions we sort of compartmentalise shadow since its about failure of education into
special needs classes. So we undermine failures goal (in your construction) as a teaching
device it is undermined because it is not a failure any longer, it is a given, i.e. wholly
acceptable human physical or mental attributes so just who we are.

Elizabeth Brodersen: Coming back to your [Phil] question about why education, particularly
in schools, seems to rely on such a visceral focus on the success and failure equation, I would
like to suggest that education, itself, has its own in-built structural dilemma because
it incorporates, at least, two conflicting functions: although education gives an individual
access to the acquisition of knowledge, this access is also regulated through collective
selection processes that govern social mobility and the type of knowledge that is distributed.
To illustrate what I mean, I think parents, perhaps more than teachers, influence the
educational outcome of their children by not addressing their own unconscious, shadow
complexes of success or failure. Jung ( CW 17, paras. 85-87) points to the
role undifferentiated, unconscious parental complexes play intergenerationally within the
psyche of the child which may well contribute to learning problems and children with special
needs. In my experience, modern teachers in the main want to support children, but parents
may give mixed messages to their children about success influenced by their own
negative experiences despite the encouragement and promotion from the teacher about the
potential of their own children. Class, gender and race barriers all play their
conscious/unconscious role: learning at higher educational levels for some parents still
somehow smacks of the fear of hubris, getting above one's station in life, a throwback from
18th and 19th century middle and upper class fears about working class ambition and
questioning whether reading and writing is really necessary or even appropriate for the
'masses.' Gender expectation also plays a role in dampening enthusiasm for learning. Until
the recent past, women were deemed 'passive feelers' rather than 'active thinkers,'
better privatised at home than publicised in the outside world. Both such class and gender
fears can still affect the ability of poorer children and girls to realise their ambitions.
Added to these factors is the use of corporal punishment at schools- now mainly prohibited-
but still deep in the collective memory of schooling. One of the main functions of schools
historically was to teach children obedience to authority and promote religious piety. Failure
to learn was often equated with laziness, disobedience and sinfulness and punished
accordingly. This was hardly a conducive environment to enjoy learning and build self-
confidence. Punishment is guaranteed to generate intense anxiety about performance, linked
to a fear of social and spiritual ostracism. Perhaps the concept of special needs children has
developed out of a need to atone for such abuse which may not be practiced at schools
anymore but is certainly still pravelent within the home for some children. So learning and
punishment have a strong history, guaranteed to constellate an intense 'shadow' attached to
failure.
I'm suggesting that such complex historical factors, taken together, without isolating one
particular factor, could feed 'shadow' fears about performance (success/failure) which now
concentrates on vulnerable children as 'special.' For the rest of 'normal' school children, such
fears are prayed upon by the promotion of an 'easy' alternative: 'performativity' as so well
described by educational critic Lyotard (1984). Lyotard suggests that computer age learning is
reconceived as data banks and manipulated as 'input /output' under a centalised control by
experts who determine what counts as 'knowledge.' I think this is another interesting 'shadow'
perspective to look at: the mechanisation of knowledge to avoid 'stupidity.' It appears to give
the individual pupil/student an easy access to knowledge but simultaneously streamlines,
collectivises and controls thinking about that knowledge at the same time...!
- - -
The purpose of this seminar has been to widen ego consciousness about 'shadow,' however
uncomfortable and complex this undertaking may be. 'Shadow,' itself, is generally hidden, so
there is all the more reason to applaud each of our courageous presenters for entering into
'shadow' territory and casting a light on and reporting about the phenomena they
find there. Their revelations also reveal their personal engagement with 'shadow' which has
influenced their presentation. Helena discusses 'evil' under collective totalitarian systems
which ignore the individual; Erik looks at the pagan father and his roots concentrating on
creative aspects of Mercurius as 'self.' Chris enters the shadowy world of film and describes
that twilight, hidden emotional domain. Lastly, Phil enters the classroom and draws our
attention to special needs children, those shadowing figures standing in the corner of the
classroom or outside the classroom door.

James G Johnston: A number of aphorisms come to mind related to your message. Neil
Postman once commented that we begin our education as question marks and end as periods.
One of Churchill's quips has stayed with me: "Success is going from failure to failure without
losing enthusiasm." Finally, the motto of a highly successful industrial design firm, IDEO:
"Fail early to succeed sooner."
Failure, in terms of innovation or personal growth, may be more valuable than success
because it is packed with so many rich learning opportunities. But failure in schools is often
laden with blame and shame. No wonder we might begin as question marks and end as
periods; we are afraid to fail in a "red pencil" educational culture. Innovationthe merger of
imagination and unconventional thinkingis in some ways the shadow of formal
education. Perhaps that helps to explain why some of the most innovative people here in the
U.S. have also been those who exited the culture of formal education early: Bill Gates, Steve
Jobs, Frank Lloyd Wright et al. Andrew Carnegie, one of the most successful entrepreneurs of
all time, left school at age 13.
Innovation, learning from trial and error, imagination, creative collaborationmany of the
attributes that can make for success in work and in personal growth, are often repressed in
schools. Imagination looks for many "right answers" and adventurous trial and error requires
mistakes in order to learn; a system oriented to one right answer implicitly promotes an
orientation to avoiding mistakes.
Like many self-perpetuating institutions, the educational institution tends to attract people
with psychological type dispositions that are congruent with the culture. The attraction tends
to generate a cultural one-sidedness, suppressing the opposing shadow side. Jung noted that if
the inferior type and its allies are overly repressed, they take on a role hostile to the dominant
type of consciousness. The "dumbling" inferior type becomes a demon. In Jung's model, the
shadow and inferior type are very closely connected. "I should only like to point out that the
inferior function is practically identical with the dark side of the human personality" CW 9i,
par. 222).
If overly suppressed, the inferior shadow type and its allies may rise up to create havoc for the
individual. We could likely say the same about one-sided educational cultures. An overly
intellectual culture, for example, like those that might prevail in higher education, would be
disrupted by suppressed primitive feeling: people might become petty, vindictive, and surly.
"The outside influences he has brusquely fended off attack him from within, from the
unconscious, and in his efforts to defend himself he attacks things that to outsiders seem
utterly unimportant" (CW 6 par. 636). A culture overly oriented to social norms, facts, and
"right answers," like the ones often found in early education, would tend to be disrupted by
primitive, opinionated, negative thinking: "The unconscious thinking reaches the surface in
the form of obsessive ideas which are invariably of a negative and depreciatory character"
(CW 6, par. 600).

Daniel Burston: You are right to surmise that rational and irrational authority apply across
the board to styles of parenting, teaching and political leadership. That is exactly what Fromm
intended to convey. And yes, I think you are absolutely right to bring up the issues of
boredom, attachment and humor. When they are not engaged with the teacher is a personal
way, or when a teacher, to keep his or her job, must implement a manualized or heavily
standardized curriculum - i.e. "teach to the test", which is increasingly prevalent on this side
of the Atlantic - there can be no real mutuality or dialogue, only superficial banter, pep talks
and scolding.
Also, in the absence of secure attachments, children (and teens) find it much more difficult -
though not impossible - to learn. That Canadian film I mentioned, Monsieur Lazar, addresses
the way in which teachers who embrace rational authority need to acknowledge issues of
absence, trauma and loss in children's lives, and to create an (I/Thou) atmosphere of
hopefulness and mutual respect in the classroom to contain them, but despite their own
instincts and expertise, are prevented from doing so by prevailing cultural norms and
expectations. As to humor - well, it can be a little risky sometimes, but it really helps to break
the ice, and mitigates the sense of distance and potential estrangement that comes with any
socially agreed disparity in status or power. (Gentle irony and self-mockery seem to work best
for me . . . especially with older students.)
- - -
I agree, authenticity is key, and hasten to add - in keeping with your [Phil] reflections, and
some earlier remarks of Tony's - that no matter how it is experienced, interpreted or exercised,
authority always casts a shadow. Nevertheless, the usefulness of this distinction lies in
enabling us to differentiate between 1) modes of authority that encourage (or at least permit)
reciprocity, dialogue and genuine mutuality, and those that promote mechanical or superficial
contact between teacher and pupil, and/or 2) modes of authority have a (liberating) formative
influence on those who are subject to it, as opposed to those who are somehow harmed or "de-
formed" in the process. It also enables us to answer that age-old question, whether authority is
a "good thing" or a "bad thing." Obviously, it is both and neither. It all depends of what
*kind* of authority we are talking about.
While intuitively obvious to many people, I supposed, this heuristic distinction is very hard to
grasp for any one who thinks of authority as invariably being oppressive, self-interested
and/or duplicitous - i.e. many, if not most, of my graduate students, for example. As a result,
many people who describe themselves as "anti-authoritarian" invariably approach things in
this way, with a "hermeneutics of suspicion." They can't imagine a context where acquiring
knowledge and discipline makes them more competent, more complete and ultimately, more
creative and expressive people. Or if they can, they'll only grant very grudgingly that the
teacher's competence and authority had anything to do with it.
The idea that the exercise of rational authority may be "liberating' , and a product of of
competence and concern, runs directly contrary to the theories of Max Weber and Michel
Foucault, for example. Weber believed that rational authority - which he equated with
bureaucratic authority, or what you call the "hyper-rational" approach, with its reliance on
quantification, uniformity, abstract goals and standards, etc. - ends up slamming us in an "iron
cage." If you choose to define rational authority in this way, I quite agree. For Foucault, I
think, authority can be creative, but is always self-interested at the end of day. Its ostensible
rationality always masks a hidden agenda of social control. The idea that "rational authority"
might actually have an emancipatory feeling or function seems laughable to any Foucauldian
I've ever talked to.
In any case, the "hyper-rational" approach to education you've described would fall under the
heading of what Fromm called "schizoid rationality", i.e. a detached, cerebral rationality that
is devoid of empathy, intuition, and an ethical compass, and which has little tolerance or
appreciation for individuality and creativity. Schizoid rationality is extremely dangerous to
human welfare - at least in Fromm's estimation.
Another way in which your "hyper-rational" approach might be interpreted is in terms of what
Fromm calls anonymous authority, where abstract standards, manualized curricula and
"teaching to the test" supply the content and shape the tone and tempo of instruction. This
undermines the judgement and skill of professional teachers, effectively making them little
more than technical support staff charged with keeping customers happy - these customers
being the students, the parents and the administrators who answer to them. I don't know what
things are like in the UK, but we've gone a long way down that road in North America, with
truly disastrous results. Our public schools are in shocking shape, with no real solutions in
sight.