Confusion and misunderstanding are almost similes for Jung’s psychology. Is it a science? If so, what kind is it? To understand his ideas, an overview of the unconscious psyche and natural law is helpful. Because they’re synonymous and function in a counter-intuitive way, Jung’s approach was not causal or rational from the common perspective. I would like to share some of my understanding of his method.
Because consciousness is under the influence of unseen forces, their effects can only be inferred. Just as physicists infer the existence of unseen bodies in space by their effects on visible ones, when considering unconscious effects Jung employed an indirect method called the phenomenological approach. The products of the mind comprise its study and consist of observable phenomena which are the result of unconscious effects on our thinking.
Since the basic qualities of consciousness are focus and direction, it excludes information not relevant to its attention at a given time. Jung compared it to a searchlight in a forest and the illumination of a small area in the darkness. What is beyond it still exists, though not until the light moves can it be seen. When it moves, what was formerly lit fades back into darkness. Just as in a forest, what is outside its beam works according to natural processes.
Biology has proven that all natural processes are purposeful. Despite what ego tells us, the human animal is no less the product of purposive nature than any other observable phenomenon. Jung’s method began with natural science, and he worked honestly to make it consistent with its discoveries.
His model differs from the causal approach, because psychology is the study of the psyche observing itself. It doesn’t have the luxury of an objective standpoint outside itself as natural science does. Since the unconscious organizes ideas differently than consciousness, its language is not directly accessible.
To work round the problem, to achieve a perspective beyond a subjective one, Jung used a comparative approach. As comparative anatomy studies differences and similarities in the structures of animals to arrive at common heritage and form a concept of evolution, Jung used the vantage-point of history to lend an “outside” perspective to psychic development.
To bridge the difficulty of direct measurement in natural science, he adapted its laws by formulating them in a way particular to the individual. By viewing it as a “relatively closed system” he showed the general laws of energy to apply to the psyche also.
Psychic energy could be measured in terms of value. A value represents a sum of psychic energy, and estimates of its relative importance in the individual could be determined by the frequency and intensity with which certain unconscious complexes of ideas intruded into the conscious “field.” These ideas are “feeling-toned”, emotionally charged, and their intensity and frequency measures their value.
His association tests validated the phenomena, and he found that the complexes revolved around instinctive functions. Like comparative anatomy discovered, they conform to the general laws of nature. The estimates of value provided an objective assessment, though relative to the individual.
In the course of Jung’s broad analytic experience he observed patterns in the ideas and dreams of his patients. They conformed in a remarkable way to those in religion, myth, philosophy, and literature which comprised his comparative material. They emerged as forms of thought which could be reduced to a fundamental few in comparison with the swarming, chaotic buzz (think statistics) of qualitative description. These forms are perceptible through recurring themes which reflect instinctive, pre-determined modes of perception and experience and their unconscious organization — the mind’s structure.
Jung compared his patients’ dreams with his historical studies of ideas. These included direct observations of primitive African cultures as well as American Indians in the western United States. Something emerged which was completely outside the bounds of what science regarded as material for research: the psyche had a religious function; he found that the value (the intensity and frequency of the intrusion of that complex of ideas) was one of such significance in the constitution of the mind, it required investigation.
His experience with his patients confirmed his research. This historical aspect of the psyche, developed through religious and philosophical ideas, conditions consciousness as powerfully as the objective outer world; indeed, it was the objective inner world.
Owing to his intellectual integrity, Jung allowed the material he compared and collated to “shape itself” according to the conformities reflected in it. He didn’t begin with a theory and adapt his own ideas to it. He may have begun with certain intuitive ones, but he strove to make them compatible with the material. This is the way of natural science. He wrote that a “mode of observation” had “reality-significance” if it produced results.
His method differs from statistical evaluation for reasons I hope are evident. Recent developments in neuroscience, which relies on instruments to record the data of brain processes, are just now beginning to discover “facts” which Jung observed over a century ago. Is his method too complicated for them? I doubt that. It’s more likely attributable to their focus. Is it working? Their own statistics suggest otherwise.
How many “scientific” studies only reinforce what intuition and common sense tell us? We’re so focused on the material value of the “scientific method,” so in awe of our intellects for having conceived it, we can’t see around it. These unseen influences are psychic phenomenon: material for the psychological empiricist.
The comparative method enabled Jung to see around the facade of modern ego, peer into the history of the mind, and allow consciousness to observe its own development. It lent an important perspective to subjective value and historical conditioning — as well as the important role of religious and philosophical ideas in our development.