Points Against the "Collective Psyche"

[Tabitha]

In class today, the professor had us write our own definitions of various words. In one of my definitions I had written something about "improving the psyche of an individual." I should have seen this coming from a mile away, but when she was talking about what we'd written, she said about mine something to the effect of, "It's interesting that you said 'individual psyche,' as opposed to 'individual and collective.'"

I wanted so badly to question this, but kept quiet because the conversation quickly diverted elsewhere and class was about to end. A lesser fear is that I didn't want to come off as arrogant for essentially calling Jungian psychology BS (the "collective unconscious" was Jung's M.O.). Has anyone else ever encountered this?

I sometimes struggle with coming up with quips to these and other comments without getting into the main tenets of Objectivism. I suppose this makes sense, given that as an integrated philosophy one concept really can't be grasped without other related ones. However, I know this issue of the "collective psyche" is bound to arise again in this class. Next time I want to say something to the effect of, "Consciousness lies in thought, thought lies in the mind, and the mind lies in the body. Therefore, there can't be any 'group thoughts' or 'group consciousness.'" Can anyone think of any other short, simple questions or comments that could be said in response?

Also, for those familiar with psychology, are there any merits of this concept as Jung or any of the other major psychologists define it? (In other words, am I interpreting this incorrectly or too literally?) The wikipedia definition of "collective unconsciousness" is pretty sparce, which should be telling enough as is....

Edited July 16, 2007 by Tabitha

[Mammon]

I don't know the response, but for a quick jab, ask him how come everyone in the room is not thinking about eating cotton candy naked on a merry-go round in the middle of the atlantic like you are... if we all collectively think together.

[Blinky]

Also, for those familiar with psychology, are there any merits of this concept as Jung or any of the other major psychologists define it? (In other words, am I interpreting this incorrectly or too literally?) The wikipedia definition of "collective unconsciousness" is pretty sparce, which should be telling enough as is....

Nope, it´s just nonsense. Furthermore Jung believed that there is something like collective unconscious, which was similar nonsense. As far as I remember he thought that collective unconscious (probably consciousness as well) is somehow inherited and he presupposed something like lamarkian inheritance (i.e. inheritance of acquired characterics), but to be sincere I am not sure about these two points and I don´t have the book in which I read it. Basically when he made some worthy observations he interpreted it badly by his concepts of collective unconscious or conciousness when other far better interpretation exist (similar problem as Freud´s theories).

[DavidOdden]

In class today, the professor had us write our own definitions of various words.

Almost always an inauspicious augur.

I sometimes struggle with coming up with quips to these and other comments without getting into the main tenets of Objectivism.

That is a problem -- 5 minutes in a mob context, very hard to lay out a philosophy systematically. In that case I might say something like "Oh, well that's because I was under the impression that 'psyche' is something about the mind, and the mind is part of the individual". At least that shifts the burden somewhat. This cuts a step out from your planned retort (we don't need to invoke mind/body dichotomies to make the point).

I assume this is a literature or philosophy class, not psychology. There is a marginally valid apologist's interpretation, and actual Jung. Jung seems to have been an actual real mystic loon, so he probably did really believe in The Force or similar babble. You might try to rationalize silliness about a "collective psyche" as referring to "those properties common to the individual psyches of the majority of the members of such-and-such society". An example would be the collective American psyche as contrasted with the collective Canadian psyche. There is an "individual and independent" orientation in some people's psyche, and a "groups and dependent" orientation in other people's psyche. You could plot on a map where those people are, and on average, you'd find that the individualist psyche is stronger in America and the collectivist psyche is stronger in Canada. (The reasons why are somewhat interesting, but not enough so to bother with now). So the mystical terminology of Jung can be used metaphorically to refer to differences in societies, which do in fact exist.

[skap35]

When I had to deal with this type of professor I just kept my mouth shut and told them what they wanted to hear. When my dad was in school he would get into heated debates with his professors and they gave him bad grades as a result, so I figured it was in my best interest not to argue with them.