Giegerich, Marx and Benjamin: Integrating Economics and Religion

I recently discovered the writings of Wolfgang Giegerich, and I want to share some thoughts.

Giegerich argues that the task of the present age is to help the soul move from its old home within inner religious experience, to its new home in the economy, science, art and all of culture. What is Giegerich talking about? I actually find it a surprisingly intuitive argument: just as the medieval mystic is gripped by an inner experience of God, modern humanity is gripped by the internet, television, and the nuclear bomb. Giegerich identifies the goal of maximizing economic profit as the most obvious expression of the shift that is occurring.

I believe this transition is precisely what Karl Marx describes as the transition from capitalism to socialism.

Marx, tragically, is unaware that the shift to socialism corresponds to a new birth of the soul. But he did foresee that the shift is taking place, and he understands that it is our job to create the conditions for it to be successful. As psychologist Erich Fromm observes:

"[Marxism] is the realization of the deepest religious impulses common to the great humanistic religions of the past... provided we understand that Marx, like Hegel and like many others, expresses his concern for man's soul, not in theistic, but in philosophical language."

Do not think that this transition happens mechanically or automatically. There are those who argue that soul should remain within individual experience, where tradition expects it. Giegerich would disagree. The question that must be addressed is, “Could we share soul with others or not?”

In formulating an answer, Giegerich quotes Chaucer writing in 14th century medieval England:

“But no one now sees fairies any more.

For now the saintly charity and prayer

Of holy friars seem to have purged the air.”

We are going through a similar transition today, claims Giegerich.

“[Profit maximization] is all around us, as our absolute; it is the medium or element of our existence, much like the air is the element of the human organism's existence, and it is the God to which we sacrifice what we hold most dear.”

Giegerich's idea that the economy is an expression of the soul challenges the traditional, orthodox Christian conception of "soul".  In the Christian tradition, shaped by the image of the Holy Spirit inhabiting the believer, the soul is seen as a kind of mediator between the individual and God. Combining this with the doctrine regarding the judgment of souls, it doesn’t make sense to speak of a “shared soul.”

However, as bridges are built with Eastern religious traditions, ideas are slowly changing. For instance, the New Age movement commonly talks about “soul groups” or “soul families”. The idea of soul as a shared experience is thus catching on.

Giegerich is more academic in describing the soul. Stealing from Wikipedia:

The major goal of this approach is to redefine the notion of psychology (the logos of the soul) as it has emerged as a discipline in Western thought. ... Giegerich argues for a shift in focus from the individual, whose very definition has changed radically throughout history, to a focus on “the soul.”... Accordingly, in Giegerich’s theory, the idea of soul does not function as some kind of objective or empirical substrate producing psychological phenomena. Rather it is the logical structure of thought as which any phenomena, viewed psychologically, exist. ... What is an expression of the soul? Anything of cultural significance—art, science, politics, social and political phenomena—in other words, any place that thought and mind have made an appearance. The interiority that is spoken of is the essential logical structure of such phenomena.

Unfortunately, many people are oblivious to the life of the soul, stuck in the cycles of addiction that economic hierarchy creates. Blind adherence to tradition and excessive wealth concentration combine into a sea of conformity.  

Thus Walter Benjamin, whose writings interpret Marx through the lens of Jewish mysticism, tells us to “wrest tradition from the conformism that is seeking to overpower it.” Without the efforts of people to organize with an urgency that values the strengths of our soul’s past, the soul’s transition could just as easily tear our culture, or our world, apart.

Is the profit motive completely "bad"?

The orthodox religious traditions in the West would keep the individual as the center of life experience. Capitalism is a radical rejection of this principle, in that the dynamic of the profit motive has nothing to do with people. The profit motive moves the center of life experience outside of the individual. In this sense, capitalism has transformed us from holistic individuals of past ages into... something else.

Donna Haraway proposes that the machine that drives capitalism has made us all into “cyborgs,” “fabricated hybrids of machine and organism.” She elaborates on what this might mean:

“Unlike the hopes of Frankenstein's monster, the cyborg does not expect its father to save it through a restoration of the garden; that is, through the fabrication of a heterosexual mate, through its completion in a finished whole, a city and cosmos. The cyborg does not dream of community on the model of the organic family, this time without the oedipal project. The cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust... Cyborgs are not reverent; they do not re-member the cosmos. They are wary of holism, but needy for connection- they seem to have a natural feel for united front politics, but without the vanguard party. The main trouble with cyborgs, of course, is that they are the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism, not to mention state socialism. But illegitimate offspring are often exceedingly unfaithful to their origins. Their fathers, after all, are inessential.”

She also characterizes cyborgs as “committed to partiality, irony, intimacy, and perversity... [and] no longer structured by the polarity of public and private.”

It is the intersection of the public and private spheres of life that most interests me. I believe what’s “bad” about our economy is not the profit motive itself, but the way we define profit and property in general as being exclusively personal or totally public, with little to no space in between.

I wrote in this earlier note on Facebook:

Individually-owned private property distorts the concept of private life, which properly refers to the land and tools of a group, such as the local community, tribe, or clan--not to single family units or individuals. Defining “private property” to mean “individually-owned” degrades private life, which is dynamic and rooted in culture, into the statistical, legalistic category of "personal".

Does the profit motive dissociate us from our intuition and force us into rationalizations? Yes, of course it does. And of course this is bad. But does it recenter human experience to be outside of the individual? Yes, and this is good.

As far as where we go from here... co-ops are the future. They are what cyborgs would do.

Diagramming the Psyche - a picture of Jungian terminology

The following definitions are ordered roughly in order they appear in the picture. (courtesy of Daryl Sharp's Jung Lexicon - http://www.voidspace.org.uk/psychology/jung_lexicon.shtml )

Persona/Personae: 

The extraverted "I," usually ideal aspects of ourselves, that we present to the outside world.

The persona is . . . a functional complex that comes into existence for reasons of adaptation or personal convenience. [Definitions," CW 6., par. 801.]
The persona is that which in reality one is not, but which oneself as well as others think one is.["Concerning Rebirth," CW 9i, par. 221.]

Originally the word persona meant a mask worn by actors to indicate the role they played. On this level, it is both a protective covering and an asset in mixing with other people. Civilized society depends on interactions between people through the persona.

There are indeed people who lack a developed persona . . . blundering from one social solecism to the next, perfectly harmless and innocent, soulful bores or appealing children, or, if they are women, spectral Cassandras dreaded for their tactlessness, eternally misunderstood, never knowing what they are about, always taking forgiveness for granted, blind to the world, hopeless dreamers. From them we can see how a neglected persona works.["Anima and Animus," CW 7, par. 318.]

A psychological understanding of the persona as a function of relationship to the outside world makes it possible to assume and drop one at will. But by rewarding a particular persona, the outside world invites identification with it. Money, respect and power come to those who can perform single-mindedly and well in a social role. From being a useful convenience, therefore, the persona may become a trap and a source of neurosis.

A man cannot get rid of himself in favour of an artificial personality without punishment. Even the attempt to do so brings on, in all ordinary cases, unconscious reactions in the form of bad moods, affects, phobias, obsessive ideas, backsliding vices, etc. The social "strong man" is in his private life often a mere child where his own states of feeling are concerned.["Anima and Animus," ibid., par. 307. ]

The demands of propriety and good manners are an added inducement to assume a becoming mask. What goes on behind the mask is then called "private life." This painfully familiar division of consciousness into two figures, often preposterously different, is an incisive psychological operation that is bound to have repercussions on the unconscious.[Ibid., par. 305.]

Unconscious:

The totality of all psychic phenomena that lack the quality of consciousness. (See also collective unconscious and personal unconscious.)

The unconscious . . . is the source of the instinctual forces of the psyche and of the forms or categories that regulate them, namely the archetypes.[The Structure of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 342.]

In general, the compensating attitude of the unconscious works to maintain psychic equilibrium.

The unconscious processes that compensate the conscious ego contain all those elements that are necessary for the self-regulation of the psyche as a whole. On the personal level, these are the not consciously recognized personal motives which appear in dreams, or the meanings of daily situations which we have overlooked, or conclusions we have failed to draw, or affects we have not permitted, or criticisms we have spared ourselves.[The Function of the Unconscious," CW 7, par. 275.]

Jung attributed to the unconscious a creative function, in that it presents to consciousness contents necessary for psychological health. It is not, however, superior to consciousness; its messages (in dreams, impulses, etc.) must always be mediated by the ego.

The unconscious is useless without the human mind. It always seeks its collective purposes and never your individual destiny. [C.G. Jung Letters, vol. 1, p. 283.]
Consciousness should defend its reason and protect itself, and the chaotic life of the unconscious should be given the chance of having its way too--as much of it as we can stand. This means open conflict and open collaboration at once. That, evidently, is the way human life should be. It is the old game of hammer and anvil: between them the patient iron is forged into an indestructible whole, an "individual."[Conscious, Unconscious, and Individuation," CW 9i, par. 522.]

Peronsal Unconscious:

The personal layer of the unconscious, distinct from the collective unconscious.

The personal unconscious contains lost memories, painful ideas that are repressed (i.e., forgotten on purpose), subliminal perceptions, by which are meant sense-perceptions that were not strong enough to reach consciousness, and finally, contents that are not yet ripe for consciousness.[The Personal and the Collective Unconscious," ibid., par. 103.]

Collective Unconscious:

A structural layer of the human psyche containing inherited elements, distinct from the personal unconscious. (See also archetype)

The collective unconscious contains the whole spiritual heritage of mankind's evolution, born anew in the brain structure of every individual.[The Structure of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 342.]

Jung derived his theory of the collective unconscious from the ubiquity of psychological phenomena that could not be explained on the basis of personal experience.

The collective unconscious-so far as we can say anything about it at all-appears to consist of mythological motifs or primordial images, for which reason the myths of all nations are its real exponents. In fact, the whole of mythology could be taken as a sort of projection of the collective unconscious. . . . We can therefore study the collective unconscious in two ways, either in mythology or in the analysis of the individual.["The Structure of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 325.]

The more one becomes aware of the contents of the personal unconscious, the more is revealed of the rich layer of images and motifs that comprise the collective unconscious. This has the effect of enlarging the personality.

In this way there arises a consciousness which is no longer imprisoned in the petty, oversensitive, personal world of the ego, but participates freely in the wider world of objective interests. This widened consciousness is no longer that touchy, egotistical bundle of personal wishes, fears, hopes, and ambitions which always has to be compensated or corrected by unconscious counter-tendencies; instead, it is a function of relationship to the world of objects, bringing the individual into absolute, binding, and indissoluble communion with the world at large.[The Function of the Unconscious," CW 7, par. 275.]

Archetypes:

Primordial, structural elements of the human psyche.

Archetypes are systems of readiness for action, and at the same time images and emotions. They are inherited with the brain structure-indeed they are its psychic aspect. They represent, on the one hand, a very strong instinctive conservatism, while on the other hand they are the most effective means conceivable of instinctive adaptation. They are thus, essentially, the chthonic portion of the psyche . . . that portion through which the psyche is attached to nature.["Mind and Earth," CW 10, par. 53.]
It is not . . . a question of inherited ideas but of inherited possibilities of ideas. Nor are they individual acquisitions but, in the main, common to all, as can be seen from [their] universal occurrence.["Concerning the Archetypes and the Anima Concept," CW 9i, par. 136.]

Archetypes are irrepresentable in themselves but their effects are discernible in archetypal images and motifs.

Archetypes are, by definition, factors and motifs that arrange the psychic elements into certain images, characterized as archetypal, but in such a way that they can be recognized only from the effects they produce.["A Psychological Approach to the Trinity," CW 11, par. 222, note 2.]

Jung also described archetypes as "instinctual images," the forms which the instincts assume.

Psychologically . . . the archetype as an image of instinct is a spiritual goal toward which the whole nature of man strives; it is the sea to which all rivers wend their way, the prize which the hero wrests from the fight with the dragon.[Ibid., par. 415.]

Shadow:

Hidden or unconscious aspects of oneself, both good and bad, which the ego has either repressed or never recognized.

The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. ["The Shadow," CW 9ii, par. 14.]

The realization of the shadow is inhibited by the persona. To the degree that we identify with a bright persona, the shadow is correspondingly dark. Thus shadow and persona stand in a compensatory relationship, and the conflict between them is invariably present in an outbreak of neurosis. The characteristic depression at such times indicates the need to realize that one is not all one pretends or wishes to be.

The shadow is not, however, only the dark underside of the personality. It also consists of instincts, abilities and positive moral qualities that have long been buried or never been conscious.

The shadow is merely somewhat inferior, primitive, unadapted, and awkward; not wholly bad. It even contains childish or primitive qualities which would in a way vitalize and embellish human existence, but-convention forbids! [Psychology and Religion," CW 11, par. 134.]

An outbreak of neurosis constellates both sides of the shadow: those qualities and activities one is not proud of, and new possibilities one never knew were there.

Jung distinguished between the personal and the collective or archetypal shadow.

With a little self-criticism one can see through the shadow-so far as its nature is personal. But when it appears as an archetype, one encounters the same difficulties as with anima and animus. In other words, it is quite within the bounds of possibility for a man to recognize the relative evil of his nature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absolute evil.["The Shadow," ibid., par. 19.]

Anima: 

The inner feminine side of a man. (See also animus)

The anima is personified in dreams by images of women ranging from seductress to spiritual guide. It is associated with the eros principle, hence a man's anima development is reflected in how he relates to women. Within his own psyche, the anima functions as his soul, influencing his ideas, attitudes and emotions.

The anima is not the soul in the dogmatic sense, not an anima rationalis, which is a philosophical conception, but a natural archetype that satisfactorily sums up all the statements of the unconscious, of the primitive mind, of the history of language and religion. . . . It is always the a priori element in [a man's] moods, reactions, impulses, and whatever else is spontaneous in psychic life.["Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious," CW 9i, par. 57.]

As an inner personality, the anima is complementary to the persona and stands in a compensatory relationship to it.  Hence the character of the anima can generally be deduced from that of the persona; all those qualities absent from the outer attitude will be found in the inner.

The tyrant tormented by bad dreams, gloomy forebodings, and inner fears is a typical figure. Outwardly ruthless, harsh, and unapproachable, he jumps inwardly at every shadow, is at the mercy of every mood, as though he were the feeblest and most impressionable of men. Thus his anima contains all those fallible human qualities his persona lacks. If the persona is intellectual, the anima will certainly be sentimental.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 804.]

So long as the anima is unconscious, everything she stands for is projected. Most commonly, because of the initially close tie between the anima and the protective mother-imago, this projection falls on the partner, with predictable results.

Jung suggested that if the encounter with the shadow is the "apprentice-piece" in a man's development, then coming to terms with the anima is the "master-piece."["Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious," CW 9i, par. 61.] The goal is her transformation from a troublesome adversary into a function of relationship between consciousness and the unconscious. Jung called this "the conquest of the anima as an autonomous complex."

With the attainment of this goal it becomes possible to disengage the ego from all its entanglements with collectivity and the collective unconscious. Through this process the anima forfeits the daemonic power of an autonomous complex; she can no longer exercise the power of possession, since she is depotentiated. She is no longer the guardian of treasures unknown; no longer Kundry, daemonic Messenger of the Grail, half divine and half animal; no longer is the soul to be called "Mistress," but a psychological function of an intuitive nature, akin to what the primitives mean when they say, "He has gone into the forest to talk with the spirits" or "My snake spoke with me" or, in the mythological language of infancy, "A little bird told me."[The Mana-Personality," CW 7, par. 374.]

Animus:

The inner masculine side of a woman. (See also anima, Eros, Logos and soul-image.)
Like the anima in a man, the animus is both a personal complex and an archetypal image.

Woman is compensated by a masculine element and therefore her unconscious has, so to speak, a masculine imprint. This results in a considerable psychological difference between men and women, and accordingly I have called the projection-making factor in women the animus, which means mind or spirit. The animus corresponds to the paternal Logos just as the anima corresponds to the maternal Eros.[The Syzygy: Anima and Animus," CW 9ii, pars. 28f.]
The animus is the deposit, as it were, of all woman's ancestral experiences of man-and not only that, he is also a creative and procreative being, not in the sense of masculine creativity, but in the sense that he brings forth something we might call . . . the spermatic word.["Anima and Animus," CW 7, par. 336.]

The animus becomes a helpful psychological factor when a woman can tell the difference between the ideas generated by this autonomous complex and what she herself really thinks.

Like the anima, the animus too has a positive aspect. Through the figure of the father he expresses not only conventional opinion but-equally-what we call "spirit," philosophical or religious ideas in particular, or rather the attitude resulting from them. Thus the animus is a psychopomp, a mediator between the conscious and the unconscious and a personification of the latter.[Ibid., par. 33.]

Any of the aspects of the animus can be projected onto a man. As with the projected anima, this can lead to unrealistic expectations and acrimony in relationships.

Like the anima, the animus is a jealous lover. He is adept at putting, in place of the real man, an opinion about him, the exceedingly disputable grounds for which are never submitted to criticism. Animus opinions are invariably collective, and they override individuals and individual judgments in exactly the same way as the anima thrusts her emotional anticipations and projections between man and wife.["Anima and Animus," CW 7, par. 334.]

Projection:

An automatic process whereby contents of one's own unconscious are perceived to be in others.

Just as we tend to assume that the world is as we see it, we naïvely suppose that people are as we imagine them to be. . . . All the contents of our unconscious are constantly being projected into our surroundings, and it is only by recognizing certain properties of the objects as projections or imagos that we are able to distinguish them from the real properties of the objects. . . . Cum grano salis, we always see our own unavowed mistakes in our opponent. Excellent examples of this are to be found in all personal quarrels. Unless we are possessed of an unusual degree of self-awareness we shall never see through our projections but must always succumb to them, because the mind in its natural state presupposes the existence of such projections. It is the natural and given thing for unconscious contents to be projected.["General Aspects of Dream Psychology," ibid., par. 507.]"
Projection means the expulsion of a subjective content into an object; it is the opposite of introjection. Accordingly, it is a process of dissimilation, by which a subjective content becomes alienated from the subject and is, so to speak, embodied in the object. The subject gets rid of painful, incompatible contents by projecting them.[Definitions," CW 6, par. 783.]

Projection is not a conscious process. One meets with projections, one does not make them.

The general psychological reason for projection is always an activated unconscious that seeks expression.["The Tavistock Lectures," CW 18, par. 352.]

It is possible to project certain characteristics onto another person who does not possess them at all, but the one being projected upon may unconsciously encourage it.

It frequently happens that the object offers a hook to the projection, and even lures it out. This is generally the case when the object himself (or herself) is not conscious of the quality in question: in that way it works directly upon the unconscious of the projicient. For all projections provoke counter-projections when the object is unconscious of the quality projected upon it by the subject.[General Aspects of Dream Psychology," CW 8, par. 519.]

Through projection one can create a series of imaginary relationships that often have little or nothing to do with the outside world.

The effect of projection is to isolate the subject from his environment, since instead of a real relation to it there is now only an illusory one. Projections change the world into the replica of one's own unknown face. In the last analysis, therefore, they lead to an autoerotic or autistic condition in which one dreams a world whose reality remains forever unattainable.[The Shadow," CW 9ii, par. 17.]

Projection also has positive effects. In everyday life it facilitates interpersonal relations. In addition, when we assume that some quality or characteristic is present in another, and then, through experience, find that this is not so, we can learn something about ourselves. This involves withdrawing or dissolving projections.

So long as the libido can use these projections as agreeable and convenient bridges to the world, they will alleviate life in a positive way. But as soon as the libido wants to strike out on another path, and for this purpose begins running back along the previous bridges of projection, they will work as the greatest hindrances it is possible to imagine, for they effectively prevent any real detachment from the former object.["General Aspects of Dream Psychology," CW 8, par. 507.]

The need to withdraw projections is generally signaled by frustrated expectations in relationships, accompanied by strong affect. But Jung believed that until there is an obvious discordance between what we imagine to be true and the reality we are presented with, there is no need to speak of projections, let alone withdraw them.

Shadow projection and anima/animus projection:

The shadow is a shallower layer of the unconscious than the anima/animus, and so shadow projection is more easily withdrawn than anima/animus projection.

"Nature is conservative and does not easily allow her courses to be altered; she defends in the most stubborn way the inviolability of the preserves where anima and animus roam. Hence it is much more difficult to become conscious of one's anima/animus projections than to acknowledge one's shadow side." [Aion, par. 16]

The projection of the personal shadow generally falls on persons of the same sex. On a collective level, it gives rise to war, scapegoating and confrontations between political parties. Projection that takes place in the context of a therapeutic relationship is called transference or countertransference, depending on whether the analysand or the analyst is the one projecting.

Self / God-image: 

The deepest layer of the collective unconscious; the archetype of wholeness and the regulating center of the psyche; a transpersonal power that transcends the ego.

As an empirical concept, the self designates the whole range of psychic phenomena in man. It expresses the unity of the personality as a whole. But in so far as the total personality, on account of its unconscious component, can be only in part conscious, the concept of the self is, in part, only potentially empirical and is to that extent a postulate. In other words, it encompasses both the experienceable and the inexperienceable (or the not yet experienced). . . . It is a transcendental concept, for it presupposes the existence of unconscious factors on empirical grounds and thus characterizes an entity that can be described only in part.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 789.]
The self is not only the centre, but also the whole circumference which embraces both conscious and unconscious; it is the centre of this totality, just as the ego is the centre of consciousness. ["Introduction," CW 12, par. 44.]

Like any archetype, the essential nature of the self is unknowable, but its manifestations are the content of myth and legend.

The self appears in dreams, myths, and fairytales in the figure of the "supraordinate personality," such as a king, hero, prophet, saviour, etc., or in the form of a totality symbol, such as the circle, square, quadratura circuli, cross, etc. When it represents a complexio oppositorum, a union of opposites, it can also appear as a united duality, in the form, for instance, of tao as the interplay of yang and yin, or of the hostile brothers, or of the hero and his adversary (arch-enemy, dragon), Faust and Mephistopheles, etc. Empirically, therefore, the self appears as a play of light and shadow, although conceived as a totality and unity in which the opposites are united.[Definitions," CW 6, par. 790.]

The realization of the self as an autonomous psychic factor is often stimulated by the irruption of unconscious contents over which the ego has no control. This can result in neurosis and a subsequent renewal of the personality, or in an inflated identification with the greater power.
Experiences of the self possess a numinosity characteristic of religious revelations. Hence Jung believed there was no essential difference between the self as an experiential, psychological reality and the traditional concept of a supreme deity.

It might equally be called the "God within us."[The Mana-Personality," CW 7, par. 399.

Walter Benjamin and Carl Jung

In a letter to Gershom Scholem in 1937, Walter Benjamin wrote that he was "waging an onslaught on [Jung’s] doctrines, especially those concerning archaic images and the collective unconscious", and, even more damning, that in going through one of Jung's earlier essays, he found Jung's "auxiliary services to National Socialism [the Nazi Party] have been in the works for some time." [ The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin and Gershom Scholem, 1932-1940. p. 197. http://books.google.com/books?id=M1JQA66rxsEC ]

These are serious charges, and they seem to have polarized any subsequent comparison of these two intellectual giant's works. Jungian scholarship concentrates more on the psychology of the individual, and so avoids the broad social and political questions that Benjamin addresses. In the same way, scholarship concerning Benjamin rarely dives far enough into the individual psyche to address the issue of "archaic images" vs. "dialectical images" in depth. When Benjamin's relationship to Jung is addressed, it is usually in the context of Benjamin's Marxist politics, and, following the lead of Adorno and Horkheimer, Jung's theory is denounced as justifying Hitler's fascism. This is the case in the following segment from Richard Wolin's Labyrinths: Explorations in the Critical History of Ideas, which nevertheless provides the best summary of Benjamin's proposed essay:

Benjamin’s concept of the “collective unconscious”—one of the methodological keys to the Arcades Project—was explicitly derived from Jung. In the mid-1930s, as the fascistic implications of Jung's theories became apparent, Benjamin came to view a theoretical self-clarification vis-a-vis Jung as an imperative task. He alludes to this project in a 1937 letter to Scholem: "I wish to secure certain methodological fundaments of ‘Paris Arcades’ via a confrontation with the theories of Jung—especially those of the archaic image and the collective unconscious." His proposed study of the differences separating his utilization of these concepts from that of Jung and Klages was rebuffed by the Institute for Social Research. Undoubtedly, Horkheimer et al. were convinced that an engagement with Jung and Klages. even for the sake of broadening the potentials of left-wing Kulturkritic was wholly unacceptable under current historical circumstances, in which the link between vitalism and fascist ideology were present for all to see. Adorno had already vehemently criticized Benjamin‘s uncritical reliance on their theories in “Paris, Capital of the Nineteenth Century“ (the Arcades Exposé)—especially with reference to Benjamin‘s attempt to view the classless society of prehistory as a “golden age“: “Thus disenchantment of the dialectical image leads directly to purely mythical thinking, and here Klages appears as a danger, as did Jung earlier.” [ Wolin, Labyrinth. p. 70.  http://books.google.com/books?id=FdkQrXnPpUQC ]

The Adorno quote in Wolin's analysis is taken from a 1935 letter from Adorno to Benjamin. However, Wolin ignores that Adorno himself in a 1937 letter is in favor of Benjamin prioritizing an essay on Jung ahead of one on Baudelaire, which was preferred by Horkheimer and is the one that ended up being written before Benjamin's far-too-early death:

Once again, I have explicitly argued the case why I would really prefer to see the piece on Jung taken in hand before the whole question of the Arcades itself is properly addressed. Max [Horkheimer] will certainly communicate his opinion on this to me in any case.  [ Adorno, Theodore and Benjamin, Walter. The Complete Correspondence, 1928-1940. p. 180 http://books.google.com/books?id=HXfe12XjebEC ]

This suggests that Adorno did not consider the issue of the dialectical vs. archaic image sufficiently resolved, and suggests that Adorno was unclear how far Jung's and Benjamin's theories overlapped. Due to Benjamin's early death in 1940, the issue was never resolved, and as far as I have seen in my research, the question still has yet to be seriously addressed to this day!

From my own informal readings, I see a deep unity within Jung and Benjamin. Specifically, I believe there are signficant parallels to be drawn between Benjamin's rejection of a positivist conception of history with its faith in the constant creep of progress and Jung's repeated insistence on the need for people to "withdraw their projections" and learn to look to the "objective psyche," as he later came to call the collective unconscious, as a potential source of answers to life's deepest questions.

It is my belief that if Benjamin had in fact gotten the opportunity to write his essay on Jung, he himself would have found these parallels, and found much use in Jung's psychological model.

A Response to Billy Graham - Why All Religious Individuals Should Also Vote Against North Carolina's Amendment One on May 8th!

This amendment is misguided on so many levels. First, dictating social norms through the arm of the state is the least effective and most harmful form of education. (Isn't this what the whole Reformation thing was about?) Churches should know this by now.

But beyond this, the church ought to realize the shift in its role within the present times.

The churches who support Amendment One are shooting themselves in the foot. The reality is that we are in the midst of a great cultural shift. Historically, the guidelines for compassionate behavior have been defined by religious leaders--today, science defines our social norms and public expectations regarding compassion. Historically, religious life has predominantly meant belief in orthodox doctrine and ritual--today, religious life is the quest for fantasy and symbolic meaning, which the modern age is currently missing.

How should compassion be taught? There is no absolute answer to this question, as the the concrete circumstances of every individual's life varies greatly. However, a general social norm is needed in order to meet the practical preconditions for public interaction. Without an accepted greeting, such as a smile or hand-shake, than many of us would probably never interact socially with a stranger!  Historically, the guidelines for compassion has been set by religious leaders. Today, however, the authority of the scientist has replaced the authority of the priest regarding compassion.

Ask yourself this: Does science now define compassion as a cultural norm in our society? When we look at the role of science in medicine, in education, in political decision-making, the answer can only be "yes". Which is more influential within these ethics-focused spheres? The opinions of scientists or of religious leaders?

This is not to dismiss religion as irrelevant, however, as it will continue to serve two important functions.

First, religion will continue to play its traditional role, as its presentation of issues such as compassion will continue to appeal to many individuals, even while they are no longer being accepted as general social norms. Science may be replacing religion's authority in defining the general cultural norm for expectations of compassionate behavior for public life in a society, but such social norms become meaningless within the personal life of the individual. Cultural norms say nothing about what best suits a specific individual, and so religion will continue to be an important teacher of compassion for many individuals.

Secondly, religion itself is going through a shift in its social function. Religion's influence on public, collective life is increasingly devitalized, so that its role within the personal life can be enhanced.

In his treatment of hundreds of patients, the Swiss psychologist Carl Jung discovered that the orthodox interprations of Scripture no longer communicated religious truth to the adapted modern psyche. He proposed that the gnostic-influenced interpretation's time has finally come. The following chart summarizes this position.

Layers of meaning in Jesus’s crucifixion story	First-layer interpretation (Orthodox-influenced)	Second-layer interpretation (Gnostic-influenced)
God	Good	the Unknown
Jesus	Ego	Ego
Christ	Ego	God-image / fate
Incarnation	God’s compassion for us / God’s grace	God’s struggle to overcome his dark side
Satan	Evil	God’s shadow / dark side
Salvation / Redemption	Acceptance of God’s grace	discovery of one’s God-image / discovery of one’s fate
Crucifixion	A one-time deal, in which Jesus paid the “blood debt” that we owe to God for our sins	a religious experience open to everyone, in which we let ego ‘die’ as the sovereign center of life so that both our unique development and our collective God-image are taken into account/ discovery of one’s fate
Resurrection	rebirth into a church-body where Good has overcome Evil	rebirth into a life guided by Spirit -- a life centered around the relationship between ego and God / discovery of one’s fate

Carl Jung wrote about the reigious shift that is occurring:

Today Christianity is devitalized by its remoteness from the spirit of the times. It stands in need of a new union with, or relation to, the atomic age, which is a unique novelty in history. The myth needs to be retold in a new spiritual language, for the new wine can no more be poured into the old bottles than it could in the Hellenistic age... It is my practical experience that psychological understanding revivifies the essentail Christian ideas and fills them with the breath of life. This is because our worldly light, i.e., scientific knowledge and understanding, coincides with the symbolic statement of the myth, whereas previously we were unable to bridge the gulf between knowing and believing. [Jung, Man and his Symbols]

In describing the difference between the collective, public sphere and the individual, personal sphere, Carl Jung wrote,

There can be no self-knowledge on theoretical assumptions... [the individual] is not to be understood as a recurrent unit but as something unique and singular. [Jung, Man and his Symbols]

Cultural norms say nothing about what best suits a specific individual, and religion will continue to be an important teacher of compassion for many individuals.

At the same time, cultural norms are absolutely necessary within our collective, public lives. Jung continues,

At the same time man, as a member of a species, can and must be described as a statistical unit; otherwise nothing general could be said about him.  [Jung, Man and his Symbols]

To have a meaningful culture, we must have social norms that dictate the expectations of public interactions.

The mind adapted to the the rationalistic spirit of the modern age lacks fantasy and symbolic life. The church, the caretakers of a particulary impactful set of symbols, instead tries to dictate more codes of behavior. The church's role should be that of a trusted counselor in the individual's effort to find his or her own way. But instead of the counsel and support that the modern adapted mind wants, in supporting oppressive proposals like North Carolina's Amendment One, the evangelical religious leaders offer us only more rigidity. Shame on Billy Graham and all religious leaders who support Amendment One--they are misusing their position as religious authorities and in doing so are shooting Christianity in the foot.