Jordan Peterson is a familiar name to anyone invested in Christian circles. Dr. Peterson has offered somewhat of a middle ground in the debate on the existence of God and the meaning of life between atheists and Christians. By combining psychology, religious phenomenology, and existential philosophy he was able to breathe life into the cultural discussion on these topics which had grown quite stagnant due to a shared scientific-materialism between atheists and (predominantly protestant) Christian apologists. Rather than approach religious texts as something akin to a historical or scientific textbook, Peterson treated them as having immense meaning and psychological value. He used his knowledge of Jungian symbology to map biblical stories onto the human psyche, and then gave practical ways to apply them to our lives. Many of us today may not even be Christians if it wasn’t for Dr. Peterson’s lectures, debates, books, and interviews that opened our minds and hearts beyond what we previously believed. This being so, there is no intention to condemn Dr. Peterson as a whole in this article, but rather to criticize one of the concepts that is most central to his work and worldview: The Jungian Self.
To understand the Jungian Self we must first understand that it is a supraordinate synthesis of the two major fields of consciousness: the Ego and the Unconscious mind. The unconscious mind importantly consists of both the Personal Unconscious, and the Collective Unconscious.
“We understand the ego as the complex factor to which all conscious contents are related. It forms, as it were, the centre of the field of consciousness; and, in so far as this comprises the empirical personality, the ego is the subject of all personal acts of consciousness. The relation of a psychic content to the ego forms the criterion of its consciousness, for no content can be conscious unless it is represented to a subject (Jung, 1969, p.3).”
Now we see that the ego is the point of reference for the field of the conscious mind, it is the sphere in which all that is known to us resides. Theoretically there is no limit to the ego, but it finds its limit when it encounters the unknown (Jung, 1969, p3.).
The unknown according to Jung: “…consists of everything we do not know, which, therefore, is not related to the ego as the centre of the field of consciousness. The unknown falls into two groups of objects: those which are outside and can be experienced by the senses, and those which are inside and can be experienced immediately. The first group comprises the unknown in the outer world; the second. the unknown in the inner world. We call this latter territory the unconscious (Jung, 1969, p.3).”
So, the unconscious mind consists of psychic content that is personal, yet unknown. Traumas, desires, and emotions which lie underneath consciousness that influence our behavior. More nowadays than ever it is clear to the observer that many people in modern society are controlled by unconscious content. When this unconscious content is left unknown, it can take over the personality of an individual. The ego shrinks, and the unconscious mind is left to rule over the subjects mind. This phenomena is what Jung refers to as the Shadow. The shadow is an archetype of the collective unconscious, meaning it is something that while unconscious, is suprapersonal. All people have a shadow, and will be forced to face it.
One of the primary ways that the shadow manifests itself in the behavior of its subject, is through projection. The subject, having its mind subsumed by the shadow “projects” the turmoil and imbalance in its psyche onto something or someone outside of itself,
“…experience shows that there are certain features which offer the most obstinate resistance to moral control and prove almost impossible to influence. These resistances are usually bound up with projections, which are not recognized as such, and their recognition is a moral achievement beyond the ordinary… in this case both insight and good will are unavailing because the cause of the emotion appears to lie, beyond all possibility of a doubt, in the other person (Jung, 1969, p.3).”
It is clear that projection is rampant everywhere in art, literature, visual media, music, and politics whether left or right, Christian or non-Christian.
The answer and the “…moral achievement beyond the ordinary… (Jung, 1969, p.3).” in opposition to the shadow is the Self. As said earlier the self is the synthesis of the conscious and unconscious mind. It is to Jung the proper development of the personality, and the subjects goal is to actualize the self (the term self-actualization coined by Maslow is based on this concept). Through the descent of the conscious mind into the unconscious mind through self-knowledge the shadow is defeated momentarily, and gives way to a psychological rebirth. This pattern of descent and rebirth is mirrored in the death and resurrection of Christ, Jung even dubs Christ as “A symbol of the self.” Thus to Jung the realized self is the pinnacle of the personality, and is the basis for his anthropology, but this also denigrates Christ to merely a psychological reality. Herein is where we shall criticize the Jungian self, for as Christians we cannot accept that Christ is only a psychological reality used to explore and understand a higher concept of personhood, but that instead Christ is the basis for reality and personhood itself.
Christian personhood is based upon the union of God and man through perfect love. This union is not from a purely psychological basis, but encapsulates the whole of man ontologically. The created becomes themselves only through union with their Creator. It is important to note that to Christians, God is not the “idea” or the archetype of goodness, but that he is the personal God revealed by his Prophets, Apostles and Saints:
“In the church we do not accept the teaching about idea, the ontology of God as the philosophers describe it, nor the pre-existence of the soul, nor the eternity of the world and of time, nor what is said about man’s release, that the soul must leave the body, which is the souls prison – nor that God is the prime unmoving mover, etc (Hierotheos, 2002, pg.32).” The philosophers and psychologists use conjecture and imagination to attempt an understanding of God with reason at the center, whereas for the Holy Fathers the nous was at the centre. They first cleansed their hearts from the passions, and their nous was illuminated:
“Abide in Me, and I in you… He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit (John 15:4-5).”
It is only through love that the person is fully realized. The individuality seen in Jung’s concept of the self is in opposition to the person revealed through love. For Jung the person is fully realized when the person “individuates”, when he draws all of his mind into one state of consciousness and “becomes himself”, but for the Christian,
“Love is the supreme road to knowledge of the person, because it is an acceptance of the other person as a whole. It does not project on to the other person individual preferences, demands, or desires, but accepts him as he is, in the fullness of his personal uniqueness. This is why knowledge of the distinctiveness of the person achieves its ultimate fullness in the self-transcendence and offering of self that is love…”
A Christian becomes themselves, becomes a person, only when they give themselves in love to another. This is in direct opposition to Jung’s individualism and the individualism of the age we live in which is based upon self love. Even many Christians today are captured by the ideology of self love and find it difficult to reconcile our calling to abandon self love, but also our calling to become Saints and to avoid falling into despair. Saint Sophrony of Essex says on this conundrum to, “Love God to the point of self hatred, and then you will embrace everything in that love!” When the love of God and our fellow man is the center of our life, this despair of ourselves will go away because we find our purpose and meaning within the other person
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy. A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world (John 16:20-21).”
Christian personhood also has an ascetic character. The importance of asceticism in Christian personhood is important to note especially when compared to Jung’s idea of the self which views the person abstractly through philosophy and psychology and as a result views love as sensual and biological. Through repentance, fasting, prayer, tears, and worship the whole of the person is united to God’s will. The body, heart, mind and nous are turned towards God: “Nothing so inspires the soul with love for God and love for one’s fellow men as humility, compunction, and pure prayer (Philokalia vol. 4, pg.118).”
St. Niketas Stethatos says about asceticism: “Where there is love for God, spiritual labour, and participation in the unapproachable light, there too the soul’s powers will be at peace, the nous will be purified, and the Holy Trinity will dwell within us (Philokalia vol. 4, pg.107).” Without an ascetic character the person cannot have a proper constitution. If the person is only realized in the mind, then matter ceases to have its true meaning, leading some (even Jung) to lean towards gnosticism. Through asceticism all of man both material and immaterial are fully realized through the grace of God.
“…love is linked with the person, particularly when the person has a theological infrastructure and interpretation, and not a philosophical or psychological one. The philosophical and psychological interpretation does not give us an assurance that love is genuine (Hierotheos, 2002, pg.102).”
Only Christian personhood, not Jung’s individualism, can provide meaning for the suffering we are experiencing today. Despair is rampant across the world. Science, modern philosophy, psychology, and politics have replaced God and any meaningful search for truth. The human being, God’s crowning jewel of creation is denigrated, mocked, and destroyed. On top of all of this, our individual tragedies torment us. We know deep within ourselves that we are meant to be one with God, but our sins keep us from seeing his light. Here is a lengthy quotation from St. Sophrony of Essex, a modern Saint who experienced this same despair and was transformed by it:
“…the Lord revealed to me the mystery of the persona. Year after year, I prayed prayers of despair. The Lord did not despise me, and descended in mercy even unto me. At first it was His gospel word that acted on me. This word, that proceedeth from the Father, took root in my hardened heart. My new life was born in suffering. To begin with, I was as it were suspended in the air, alone, outside the Church. I was completely ignorant then, but an invisible fire consumed me, and my soul in agony reached up to the Almighty to save me. Somewhere inside me a ray of hope appeared that overcame my dread of starting out on the painful path. This pain that I am trying to speak of is sacred for me. A strange miracle – the dolour in my heart brought moments of rapture to my spirit. I marveled how God had created my nature able to endure suffering through which hitherto unknown depths of prayer were disclosed to me, There were times when, gripped by pain, in a whisper that yet cried aloud in wonder I would exclaim, ‘Glory to Thee, all-wise Creator’. Prayer delivered me from the cramped prison of the world, and my spirit lived in the freedom of the infinity of my God. Without this suffering I could never have understood the love that the Lord spoke of when He said, ‘The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do’ (John 14:30-31).” (Saint Sophrony, We Shall See Him as He Is, pg.197-198)
Sacred pain! Only in Christianity, only in our Orthodox Church do we find such immense depth! St. Sophrony shows us that personhood is only realized through asceticism, self-sacrificial love (kenosis), and long-suffering. Jung’s purely psychological analyses of the person cannot account for the despair facing us.
“The person is not exhausted in philosophical definitions and theological analyses, but is experienced within suffering. A new being is born through suffering. Just as suffering is linked with biological birth, so also spiritual suffering is linked with man’s spiritual birth (Hierotheos, 2002, pg.99).”
As an “individual” it is impossible to bear this despair and pain by ourselves. When we cease to suffer for ourselves, and being to suffer for God and our neighbor then despair is defeated and we can allow God to shape us into who we are meant to be.