Andrew Campbell-Watt Essay 31/03/2011

Reconsidered: The Collective Unconscious

As theorised by C.G. Jung

An Essay
by

Andrew Campbell-Watt

B.Com. (Rhodes University, South Africa); Grad. Dip. Business (Aust Maritime College, Tasmania);

Cert IV Life Coach (L.C.I.A., Qld.)

(Currently: Third Year student BA (Psych) at Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia)

Abstract

The purpose of this essay is to examine the theory of the “Collective Unconscious” as
suggested by C.G. Jung. This is defined in Jung’s own words and then discussed from two
aspects. Firstly from an objective, reductionist point of view to try to establish, from scientific
criteria, just what it is that is being discussed. Secondly a subjective, even philosophical
approach is taken which adopts a more general holistic view of life experiences and how the
“collective unconscious” influences us all. The difficulties in reconciling these differing views
is considered. Jung’s Archetypes are not discussed.

Introduction

Psychology (the word), derives from the Greek ‘Psyche’ (pertaining to the Mind or Soul) and
‘ology’ (pertaining to a branch of Knowledge). It would be to the advantage of all not to lose
sight of the original meaning of Psychology because this should guide our thoughts on this
discipline. In this regard my life experiences and studies lead me to the rather uncomfortable
conclusion that, as I understand the subject, psychology is trying to reconcile the
irreconcilable. There is an attempt to reconcile the objective, quantitative, scientifically
measurable aspects of the biological brain with the subjective, qualitative and immeasurable
aspects of the mind with the hope of arriving at some meaningful answer.

Any such reconciliation is dependent on the deep consideration of some difficult concepts
which in themselves raise many questions. For instance, what is Intelligence? What is the
difference between brain and mind? What is “Life”? Is Life the same as Consciousness? What
is it that is absent when a sentient being that was “alive” is now “dead”? What is a thought or
an emotion and how is a thought or an emotion generated? These terms (intelligence, alive,
dead, consciousness, mind, thought and emotion) are common currency yet there is no agreed
definition or consensus as to what they are. The brain is often considered to “contain” the
mind and yet the “mind” is not the brain – even though they appear to be related in some
manner as one affects the other. The issues of mind/life/consciousness are often sidestepped
with the statement that they are “genetic”. Yet genes are not self-emergent. Genes are

1
Andrew Campbell-Watt Essay 31/03/2011

“switches” activated by an environmental “trigger” (Lipton 2005). This, in itself, shows a

measure of discrimination and intelligence on behalf of the gene. Reliance on genetics is
fraught, particularly when it is noted that we share half our genes with the banana (Robert
May, 2001. President of Royal Society).

It will be recalled that all living things are formed from cells and all life forms live and
operate, in their disparate ways, by the functioning of these cells. All sentient life forms are
made up from cells and these cells perform their various tasks and generally pass sensory
messages around. This is a basic biological function, but we seldom consider the cells – some
70 billion of them – which comprise our individual body forms. Yet these 70 billion cells –
which are individual entities in their own right – somehow co-operate to create the human
form. This is an intelligent act by any standard. Likewise these cells, which have a limited
lifespan, replicate themselves many times over, more or less exactly, to maintain what was
there before. Furthermore these cells, when replicating, not only somehow maintain the same
body form, they also transfer the same genes, traits, thought patterns, characteristics and
mannerisms that presented themselves at birth or developed during the sentient beings
formative years. The extraordinary thing is that these traits, characteristics and mannerisms
may be altered with training, with practice and by self-will – is this cells telling themselves
what to do? This is unlikely unless cells are intelligent. If they are intelligent this opens up a
whole new scenario.

This functioning of the cells, it is here proposed, is the “Collective Unconscious” in operation.

Jung defines the collective unconscious in the following terms. “My thesis, then, is as follows:
In addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and
which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal
unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal,
and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does
not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes,
which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic
contents.” (Portable Jung, ed. Joseph Campbell.)

First consideration

In this first part a reductionist approach is adopted to try and establish, from an objective
stand point, the difference between a brain and the mind. It will be recalled that all observable
forms of matter are constructed from atoms and molecules. This becomes interesting if
“Matter” (in the form of the human body and brain) together with “Life”, are considered in
the light of quantum physics which states (basically) that Energy = Matter, with light as the
constant (remember E=MC2?). I am no physicist but I understand enough to know that
Einstein, with his famous equation, revealed that the Universe is not just billions of distinct
items separated by inert space but in fact is a dynamic construct in which matter and energy
are so inextricably mixed that it is not possible to consider them as separate elements. If this is
true, where does this leave ‘life’, the ‘mind/consciousness’ and ‘intelligence’? How can
energy be intelligent or conscious? What is ‘dead’ energy (i.e. some matter which was alive

2
Andrew Campbell-Watt Essay 31/03/2011

and is now dead) compared to ‘live’ energy (i.e. some matter which is animated and alive)?
Furthermore, as Miller (2009) explains, “There is no foundation for a view of life based on
the pre-eminence of matter .... Energy is indestructible and outside of time, and as a result the
total quantity of energy always remains the same. This is known as the law of conservation of
energy. But one of the astounding results of relativity theory is that there is no law on the
conservation of mass (matter)”.

These questions, relating to life, matter and energy, need to be seriously considered if the part
played by the collective unconscious is to be understood. Consider the progressive steps
between Inanimate Matter and Human Awareness, with Mankind, the last link in the chain,
believed to have evolved the widest range of useful qualities (Schumacher, 1978). To this end
and to further expound on the concept of Jung’s “Collective Unconscious” the table shown at
Fig.1 below was formulated with these preceding explanations:

 Inanimate Matter consists of atoms and molecules, which are the constituents of all
matter on earth and are the building blocks of the known Universe. This inanimate matter
has neither life, nor consciousness, nor awareness. The atomic and molecular structure of
the subject matter may be examined and its physical qualities determined.

 Inanimate Matter + Life. This ranges from single cell microscopic life (amoeba and
bacteria) to plant life. The physical structure of these will be found to consist of the same
atomic and molecular structure as inanimate matter (above). Yet they have something else
– a vivifying energy, an essence, which we call Life. We know “Life” is present because
we can see the amoeba move, subdivide and replicate. We may also note the growth of
plants; we observe plants change to the rhythm of the seasons. We know when Life is
absent, because a plant or a cell is dead. But we do not know what “Life” is.

 Inanimate Matter + Life + Consciousness. This is the next stage of the progression. We
know something is conscious only because of its opposite - it is not unconscious.
Consciousness is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as, “The state of having the
mental faculties awake and active; the waking state”. A sentient being is conscious
because it is not unconscious. Again, consciousness cannot be objectively examined in a
laboratory setting. It is assumed that to be conscious something must be alive. It is always
possible that Life and Consciousness are different sides of the same coin, as it were, that
one cannot exist without the other. This assumption begs a range of (possibly)
unanswerable questions – if plants (or amoeba) are “alive” are they also “conscious” (e.g.
a sun-flower head tracking the path of the sun)?

 Inanimate Matter + Life + Consciousness + Awareness. This is the final, most subtle
stage – awareness of existence. Human beings assume they are the only life form aware of
their own existence. But this may not be so. Other life forms may apparently share this
ability – elephants and magpies, it is said, can recognise their image in a mirror.

These basic factors, in the great sweep of the Cosmos from the inanimate to Humans, may be
tabulated as shown below:-

3
Andrew Campbell-Watt Essay 31/03/2011

1 2 3 4
Subject Basic Chemical Conscious-
Building Blocks Life ness Awareness

Inanimate Matter Yes No No No

Lower Life – Amoeba Yes Yes ? No
Plants etc
Higher Life Forms – Yes Yes Yes ?
Animals etc
Humans Yes Yes Yes Yes

Table 1. It should be noted that these are not necessarily discrete items but are shown in this
form purely for descriptive purposes. Their interaction is accepted as a “given”.

 In the four columns shown above, the first, the Basic Chemical Building Blocks,
which form the physical world as we know and see it, consisting of atoms and
molecules, are common to all substances. These constitute the only “parts” that may
be objectively, scientifically, physically examined.

 The remaining three columns represent concepts which may be defined only by their
opposites and may be identified only by inference. There is Life and Lifelessness;
Consciousness and Unconsciousness; Awareness and lack of Awareness. These do not
conform to any current scientific laws or accepted theories, and yet Life,
Consciousness and Awareness exist and together with Matter, constitute the substance
of a Human Being.

It must be emphasised that all the “parts” are interrelated even though they are qualitatively
different. For instance while the physical facts of the brain are objective and may be verified
independently (column 1, above) the subject matter of the “mind” (columns 2, 3 and 4 above)
– the thoughts, imaginings, emotions, desires, memories and beliefs – are subjective and
known only to the possessor. The objective brain and the subjective mind, however, are
assumed to be causally related in some way as injury to the brain appears to impair the
activity of the mind just as changes to the mind may result in altered behaviour – facilitated
by the brain.

It will be seen from Table 1 that matter is common to the observable world – there are no
exceptions. Using the same logic and believing that Nature does not “allow” anomalies, it is
reasonable to consider “Life”, the essence, whatever it is and however defined, as common to
all living forms. The same would apply to consciousness and that likewise, there would be no
exceptions.

Humans consider themselves the epitome of the universe – that there is as much complexity
within a Human as there is in the Universe. Furthermore there is no individual who is so

4
Andrew Campbell-Watt Essay 31/03/2011

independent that they are independent of the environment. It is here suggested that the
elements shown in columns 2, 3 and 4, (Table 1 above), certainly in so far as they relate to
Humans, may be considered to represent the “Collective Unconscious” proposed by Jung.

Second consideration.

Adopting a more holistic, philosophical approach, the three concepts of Life, Consciousness
and Awareness (see Table 1 above) are now considered. These three have, for millennia,
formed the subject matter for philosophical discussions. The whys and the wherefores of these
three are unknown, yet they exist. The millions of life forms comprising the flora and fauna of
the world, together with Humans, are a testament to their presence. As a “group” these three
concepts have historically been considered as the Spirit, the Psyche, the Metaphysical or as
the Soul. It is suggested, in terms of the theories of Jung, that this group conforms with his
concept of the “Collective Unconscious”.

A belief in Spirituality and the Divine/God/Allah/Creator/Supreme Being is common to all

societies through all ages but is something which many people in today’s (Western) secular
world are uncomfortable discussing, and in fact, some deny exists at all. Yet, without it what
is the purpose of life? Why be kind? Why be compassionate? Without it what would be the
purpose of self-sacrifice? Why be Virtuous? Why be Moral? What would be the point of
ethical behaviour which is based, principally, on the issue of cause and effect (be good and
good things are more likely to happen)? It is needful to recall that in Human experience the
effect of an action is “concealed” within the cause until the entire process is completed and
the result is “revealed” – these are two time-varied states of the same thing.

All the ancient devotional writings, known to us as scriptures; all the philosophical texts from
ancient India, Persia and Egypt, through Confucius to Plato and some of the more recent
contributors; all great literature, great poetry and all great art, start from the premise that the
basis of life is spiritual. They all attempt to inspire the reader or viewer to look beyond the
immediate, apparent existence, to something more; that a “Great Artificer” exists and that
Humans have souls and a higher purpose than mere existence. This was never questioned. The
quest for and the fulfilment of this purpose is (or should be) Mankind’s guiding star.

This is where the idea of the “Collective Unconscious” starts to make sense. It is as if Life
needs to be expressed, to be made manifest, to be appreciated in all its beauty and variety of
form. It must be remembered that there has been no known break in the continuity of this
expression of Life since primordial times (some four billion years ago). In the Human context
three possibly unanswerable questions arise, “Who am I?”; “Who or What made the
Universe?”; “What is my relationship to that Who or What?”

It was the view of the ancients that the cause of the Universe is the permanent and indivisible
Divine, whereas the effects (all matter, flora and sentient beings) are impermanent and decay
over time (Svoboda, 1992). Be this as it may, the tenacity and determination of all life forms
in propagating and maintaining their existence is phenomenal. All sentient beings will fight to
stay alive; flora and fauna persist in the most wretchedly harsh environmental and climatic
conditions; bacteria can live in the intensely acidic conditions of the gut; spiders are
5
Andrew Campbell-Watt Essay 31/03/2011

transported thousands of kilometres across oceans with gossamer web “para-gliders” utilising
the high altitude jet stream in extreme sub-zero temperatures. Life MUST be expressed – this
is the imperative – this is the charge placed upon the multifarious life forms. Consider a bird –
does it suddenly take thought and sing, or does the song “sing” the bird? It is instructive to
note that the Bhagavad-Gita (compiled over three thousand years ago) states: “Wherever life
is seen in things moveable or immovable, it is the joint product of Matter and Spirit” (Chap
13, verse 27).

All human life is bound to individuals who manifest it, and it is simply inconceivable without
them. But every human is charged with an individual destiny and destination, and the journey
to that destination or the fulfilment of that destiny is the only thing that makes sense of life.
This is a matter of personal choice and is dependent on the circumstances in which individuals
find themselves. The individual journeys and destinations may differ but the fundamental
purpose is the same – the expression of Life.

Now it is a philosophical truism that you cannot be that which you observe. I observe a tea
cup - I am not the cup. I observe my body - I am not my body. Who then or what is the
observer? Identifying the subject and the object, in any particular situation, depends on
perspective and can be determined only with reference to the object, the environment and the
interaction or relationship between the two. Life is comprehensible only with reference to
how the perceiver and the perceived interact. None of this may be determined except by
inference and reflective thought. Readers are reminded of Hamlet’s comment to Horatio,
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
(Shakespeare, Hamlet I.v.I 66).

It must be recalled that there is evidence, personal, anecdotal and “unscientific” it may be, but
evidence none-the-less, of the power of prayer. Further, why does positive thinking have such a
beneficial psychological effect? Likewise there is no acceptable scientific explanation for the
medicinal benefits of the “placebo effect”; or how it comes about that an extreme emotional
shock/trauma can cause a physical death.

Much is explained when it is remembered that Humans are made or unmade by themselves.
In the armoury of our thoughts we fashion the means by which we build for ourselves all that
is necessary for happiness, prosperity, and peace. Alternatively we may forge the weapons
with which to destroy ourselves. The Mind of Man is a powerful tool.

Further consideration must be taken regarding the moral aspects of humanity. It may be stated
that virtues are at the core of both morality and ethics regardless of the society or culture
concerned. Virtues are the qualities people admire and aspire to emulate in a ‘good person’;
the qualities of kindness, compassion, courage, honesty, temperance, humility, integrity and
justice. A person cannot be either ethical or moral without also being virtuous. Anyone’s
ethical and moral qualities together with their virtues are dependent on their set of values and
their beliefs; something that is at the core of their being. Values are not just mannerisms or a
set of preferences. They refer to something much deeper and more subtle, to a line that cannot
be transgressed. These cannot be measured and may be inferred only by the actions of the
6
Andrew Campbell-Watt Essay 31/03/2011

individuals under consideration. They are evidenced in how individuals treat fellow humans
and other sentient beings; they are on “display” with someone’s behaviour and general
demeanour. A person’s mind cannot be observed (their virtues, values or morals) but these are
all there for everyone to deduce from their ethical (or unethical) conduct. No one can think
one thing and do another (opposite to their thoughts) and remain in their comfort zone for
long without the impact of generally unforeseen consequences.

It has been suggested (possibly unkindly) that human beings as a species are neither
intelligent nor creative enough to have invented morality, virtues, values or ethics; that these
are innate and part of the human psyche. It is proposed that these core aspects of human
conduct are further evidence of there being a “Collective Unconscious”, common to all.

Plato in his dialogue, ‘Phaedo’ (Jowett translation), eloquently expresses these views when,
discussing the soul and its (probable) continued existence, Socrates said, “If death had only
been the end of all, the wicked would have had a good bargain in dying, for they would have
been happily quit not only of their body, but of their evil together with their souls.”

Finally there is a quote in the Weekend Australian (14/15th June 2003) extracted from
“Anatomica - The Complete Reference to the Human Body” (Random House) which further
illustrates the extraordinary qualities of Nature and what may be considered a working
example of the “Collective Unconsciousness”:-

“Women are characterized as the weaker sex but it is men who need a helping hand from
Mother Nature. The male disadvantage extends throughout life. From birth, male babies are
less likely to survive childhood, while at the other end of life, on average men die younger.
Nature maintains the balance between men and women by ensuring more boys are born than
girls. For every 100 girls born in Australia about 106 boys are born. A study published by the
European Society of Human Reproduction found that ... the usual ratio is 511 boys for every
489 girls in every 1000 births (104.5 boys for every 100 girls).”

Conclusion.

On the one hand a consideration of the “scientific” reductionist approach to Life,

Consciousness and Awareness, generally and how it applies to Mankind, leads inescapably to
the conclusion that all life forms are not just an agglomeration of matter; that there is
something above and beyond the observable Universe which affects all sentient beings in
different ways according to their kind. This, it is considered, is the “Collective Unconscious”
which is present in all matter which somehow, when the conditions are suitable, has been
vivified to give it Life. This “Collective Unconscious” is the bond between all living things,
that allows for the benefits of relationships between sentient beings (between individuals and
with animals) and between sentient beings and plant life (the peace felt in a wilderness setting
or by someone who creates and tends a garden).

On the other hand a holistic consideration of all the aspects of Life, Consciousness and
Awareness which have been the subject matter of Philosophical discussion since ancient times
leads to the same conclusion. That there is something above and beyond the observable which
7
Andrew Campbell-Watt Essay 31/03/2011

many term the Divine/God/Allah/Spiritual/Metaphysical, something which infuses all things

that are “alive” with Life; infuses all with the same emotional responses to fear, anger and
affection; the same essence that is absent when something dies; the same essence that
requires, needs and thrives on nurture (love). This essence, however it is termed, which is
common to all living things, is, it is suggested, the “Collective Unconscious” as proposed by
Jung.

In relation to the discipline of Psychology there is a need to consider both aspects of “Human
Life” in a balanced manner. To reconcile matter (body and brain) with the mind – the
collective unconscious - may be difficult. Concentrating, however, on one and ignoring the
other is similar to a bird trying to fly with only one wing.

References

Campbell, J. (Ed.). (1971). The Portable Jung. (extract from www.uky.edu accessed
26/09/10) (pp. 99)

Doige, N. (2007). The Brain that Changes Itself. Melbourne: Scribe.

Donald, M. (2001). A Mind so Rare. USA: Norton.

Frankl, V. (1959 & 1984). Man’s Search for Meaning. USA: Simon & Schuster.

Fromm, E. (1956 & 2006). The Sane Society. UK: Routledge.

“ “ . (1942 & 2006). The Fear of Freedom. UK: Routledge.

“ “ . (1947 & 2006). Man for Himself. UK: Routledge.

Greenberg, G. (2010). Manufacturing Depression. USA: Simon & Schuster.

Hassed, C. (2000). New Frontiers in Medicine. Melbourne: Hill of Content.

Hayward, J.W. & Varela, F.J. (2001). Gentle Bridges – Conversations with the Dalai Lama
on the Science of the Mind. USA: Shambala Publications Inc.

Jung, C.G. (1963). Memories Dreams and Reflections. UK: Collins.

“ “ . (2006). On the Nature of the Psyche, (Trans R.F.C. Hull). UK: Routledge.

“ “ . (1974 & 2004). Dreams, (Trans R.F.C. Hull). UK: Routledge.

“ “ . (1933).Modern Man in Search of a Soul, (Trans W.S. Dell & C.F. Baynes), USA:
Harcourt.

“ “ . (1960 & 1973). Synchronicity, (Trans, R.F.C. Hull). Princeton, USA: Princeton
University Press.

“ “ . (1958 & 2006). The Undiscovered Self, (Trans R.F.C Hull). UK: Routledge.

8
Andrew Campbell-Watt Essay 31/03/2011

“ “ . (1968 & 1980). Psychology and Alchemy, (Trans R.F.C. Hull). Princeton, USA:
Princeton University Press.

“ “ . (1964). Man and his Symbols. UK: Aldus.

Laing, R.D. (1959). The Divided Self. UK: Penguin.

Le Fanu, J. (2009). Why Us?. UK: Harper Press.

Lipton, B. (2005). The Biology of Belief. Santa Rosa California, USA: Elite Books.

Lynch, T. (2004). Beyond Prozac. UK: PCCS Books.

Maslow, A.H. (1972). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. USA: Penguin.

Miller, A.I. (2009). 137. Jung, Pauli and the pursuit of a scientific obsession. USA: Norton.
(pp 182-183).

Pease, A. & B. (2004). Body Language. UK: Pease International Press.

Plato. The Dialogues. (1952, trans. Jowett, B.). USA: Great Books of the Western World:
Encyclopaedia Britanica.

Rowe, D. (2003). Depression. UK: Routledge.

Schumacher, E.F. (1978). A Guide for the Perplexed. UK: Abacus.

Shri Purohit Swami. (1935). The Geeta. (The Bhagavad Gita translated from Sanskrit, assisted
by W.B Yeats). UK: Faber & Faber.

“ “ . (1935). The Ten Principal Upanishads. (translated from Sanskrit,

assisted by W.B.Yeats). UK: Faber & Faber.

Svoboda, R.E. (1992). Ayurveda – Life, Health and Longevity. UK: Penguin. (p38)