You are on page 1of 17


KRASSIMIRA BAYTCHINSKA (abstract) In this paper, an attempt has been made to outline the psychological history of socialist society. The important roles of the collective unconscious and the archetype of rebirth have been stressed. Special attention has been paid to two different socialist periods. In the first, totalitarian period, socialist society was a Kingdom of the Shadow. Social life was an arena where the fight between God and the Devil or Good and Evil was going on. This fight was an expression of a tremendous split in the human psyche - a split embodied by the opposite social characters: the almighty Communist and the helpless Collective Man. Escape from the Shadow had become a vital necessity that led to the transformation of society and to the appearance of two different social characters: Persona-communist and Personamediocrity. This gave rise to the second socialist period when society became a kingdom of the Persona, often strongly supported by the Shadow. The collapse of socialism was caused by attempts to liberate the self from the kingdom of the Shadow and the Persona. Two main characters tried to do this: the Communist-Reformer and the Dissident. Special attention has been paid to the period of transition to a democratic society. The necessity of reconsidering the Christian as well as the social and political interpretations of the archetype of rebirth has been stressed. The role of intellectuals has also been discussed.

IN SEARCH OF REBIRTH (TOWARDS A PSYCHOHISTORY OF SOCIALISM AND TRANSITION TO A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY) " We are living in times of great disruption: political passions are aflame, internal upheavals have brought nations to the brink of chaos and the very foundations of our Weltanschauung are shattered... The psychologist can not avoid coming to grips with contemporary history, even if his soul shrinks from political uproar, the lying propaganda and jarring speeches of the demagogues." (Jung, 1946) INTRODUCTION. These words were written more than forty years ago but they are still valid. Nowadays there is a claim in analytical psychology that political metaphors can be used to stimulate its further development (Samuels, 1989). But the reverse is also true - the analytical approach to political reality can be also fruitful (Bernstein, 1992). In this paper I shall make an attempt to use some concepts and ideas of analytical psychology as tools for analysis of a drama of man living in socialist and postsocialist society. This analysis is not objective but subjective one. I will try to express some insights into myself as a part of socialist society. I am pretty aware of the fact that in many respects such analysis is restricted by my individual fate determined by my social position and the historical time I live in. I dare to propose it to you 1

as by mere chance I have experienced the basic beliefs and illusions of the main social characters I want to describe below. The presentation is the result of my painful selfreflection and repentance. I want to tell you this story as I believe that you might have faced some similar problems and have the sensitivity and capacity to understand me. The problem about the nature of communism as theory and practice i.e. as socialism, is a very old one. It has been bothering people for more than a hundred and fifty years. Many scientists, philosophers and religious thinkers critically considered the dogma of communism and made warnings (Berdiaev, 1938, 1948; Bulgakov, 1909; Illin, 1927; Novgorodzev, 1918; Stepun, 1959; Struve, 1909; Frank, 1909). It also worries the writers fantasy and moral esteem (Ginsburg, 1990; Grossman, 1990; Zinoviev, 1989; Zamiatin, 1989; Kundera, 1989; Markov, 1990; Orwell, 1947, 1989; Platonov, 1988; Solgenizin, 1973, 1974). The psychological aspect of communism is still less elaborated although some analyses have been made available (Georgiev, 1992; Georgieva, 1992; Ignatov, 1990, Kamen, 1994). The aim of this presentation is to make some suggestions about the psychohistory of socialism as the practical realisation of communism. First I would like to point out basic principles of the present analysis which are based on critical reflection of the existing analyses. The first shortcoming of the analysis of socialism, in particular the psychological one, refers to the fact that socialism is usually considered as totalitarianism. The identical characteristics of both are obvious especially when comparing socialism with nazism. But interpretation of socialism as totalitarianism is illuminating only for people who have some knowledge of totalitarianism. For those living under socialism it does not work as everything that could reveal their resemblance was hidden and forbidden by communist propaganda. The second shortcoming of the psychological analysis of socialism is that it usually does not have a systemic character. It attempted to clarify different aspects of psychological pathology and dysfunction. Nowadays it is clear that socialism was a system, its components formed quite a stable whole. This means that the psychological prerequisites that caused its appearance and the basic social characters on which it was based have to become the main object of analysis. It is worth remembering that the study of the first problem began in 1906 when Vehi was published. This book was a warning which pointed out the psychology of the Russian intellegencia and the dangers of the communists coming to power. Now after the collapse of the socialism this analysis has to be expanded and related not only to the intellectuals but also to all the other social characters acting out the drama of socialist society. The third shortcoming of the previous psychological analysis of socialism is its ahistorical character. Socialism is usually considered as a static phenomenon. This is relatively true if socialism is observed from the outside but not if it is observed from inside. I believe that the psychological analysis of socialism would be more effective if it took into account its dynamic aspects - its appearance, its rise, and its fall. This analysis would tend to become a psychohistory. In this context I would like to stress the fact that socialist society was totalitarian only in its first period, the period of its rise /ascent/. The period of its decline had different features that still have to be explained. The differences between the two periods are so important that one should speak of two periods of socialism - the first can be called totalitarian, the second - posttotalitarian. The first coincided with the rise of the socialism while the second with its decay that resulted in its collapse. From this point of view the present transition towards democratic society could be considered not as a beginning but as a continuation of the second post-totalitarian period of socialism. (see for example Minev, 1994). What is also waiting for our explanation is the fact that some totalitarian societies such as fascism in Germany and Italy collapsed under the influence of external factors - the

victory of the Red Army and its allies while socialism has a self-destructive character - it collapsed because of the internal factors. Last but not least of the shortcomings of the psychological analysis of socialism is that it did not pay due attention to the psychological prerequisites for transition towards democratic society. Special attention should be given to the psychological validity of pessimistic forecasts about this transition (Zinoviev, 1989; Zamiatin, Orwell, 1948, 1987). The latter claims to have elucidated the conditions that could make possible the revival of socialism although in a different form. All the shortcomings of the psychological analysis of socialism pointed out above prove the necessity of using a systemic and historical approach toward the phenomenon of socialism They also help us to formulate its basic problem: What aspect of the human psyche made the coming of socialism, its rise and its fall possible? What aspect of the human psyche could prevent its repetition? The aim of my presentation is to suggest some basic ideas about the psychohistorical approach towards socialism. Ill try to reveal some aspects of the process of communisation and decommunisation in Eastern Europe. I shall not take into account the different ways the communists came to power - as the result of a civil war (in the former USSR) or with the help of the Red Army and redivision of the world after the Second World War. In other words I shall neglect national peculiarities. Every psychological analysis including the present one is confined within the framework of some psychological theory. The one presented here is based on the psychological theory of C.G. Jung and the following hypothesis: Two relatively opposite (and dynamic) tendencies were in action in socialist society on both social and individual levels. The first tendency was regressive - manifesting itself by activating ancient, archaic layers in the psyche of civilised man. The second tendency was compensatory - preserving and keeping men civilised despite a strongly pathological social life. These two tendencies co-existed on social and individual levels, although during certain periods one of them prevailed. The formation and strengthening of socialism was due to the regressive tendency that led to the archaization of psychic life. On the other hand, the gradual increase of the compensatory tendency resulted in the decline and collapse of socialism. (Thus the wonderful irony that it was not capitalism but socialism which contained the seeds of its own self-destruction.) In order to simplify the exposition I consider the two tendencies consecutively. In order to make my analysis clearer, I shall analysis that follows. My reasons are: use Soviet society as a model for the

1) Soviet socialist society lasted for a long time so the two tendencies under observation are easier to analyse. 2) Only in Russia was socialism formed and built as a result of an internal political movement. In Eastern Europe it was intruded and sustained by a hostile outside power - the USSR and the Red Army. 3) For a long time Russian society was a socio-political model for building socialist societies around the world. So let us consider the first tendency - that of civilised man to regress to his ancestral collective and to become archaic man again. I. CIVILIZED MAN AND THE DANGERS OF SOCIALISM. At the beginning I would like to pay attention to certain peculiarities of civilised man which formed the basis of his regression. Jung's reflections on this matter are helpful.

Civilised man adores consciousness as his main achievement. He orients himself in the world around him by means of concepts. "His consciousness ... orients itself chiefly by observing and investigating the world around him ... he forgets himself in the process, losing sight of his instinctual nature and putting his own conception of himself in place of his real being. In this way he slips imperceptibly into a purely conceptual world where the products of his conscious activity progressively take the place of reality" (Jung, 1957, p.288) But as Jung pointed out, the word, once overestimated, becomes our god. This worship of the word "becomes credulity and the word itself an infernal slogan capable of any deception. With credulity comes propaganda... the lie reaches proportions never known before in the history of the world." (Jung, 1957, p.286-287) The second important characteristic of civilised man was his atheism. The first warning was made by Nietzsche who announced that God was dead and that his heir was the Superman, but very few of his contemporaries paid attention to the possible consequences. Jung wrote: "It is an immutable psychological law, that when a projection has come to an end it always turns to its origin. So when somebody hits on the singular idea that God is dead, or does not exist at all, the psychic God-image, which is a dynamic part of the psychic structure, finds its way back into the subject and produces a condition of 'God-Almightiness'" (Jung, 1946, p. 214) The third characteristic of civilised man that was a basis for his regression to collective man is the monistic tendency that is a concomitant of rationalism. Monotheism is a feature of all civilised thought and feeling. "Monotheism has the advantage of simplicity but the defect of one-sidedness. It implies on one hand exclusion of diversity ... on the other, the practicality of realizing the ideals of present and immediate past but it holds out no real possibility of human development" (Jung, 1957, p.288) All these characteristics of civilised man were most fully embodied in intellectuals - who were the inspirers and main characters in the Russian communist movement. Those intellectuals were atheists, and adored rationalism and monism. (Berdiaev, 1948; Bulgakov, 1909; Frank, 1909.) Such beliefs formed the basis of intellectuals' adoration of Marxism, which stood for materialistic monism, atheism and rationalism. 1.1. MARXISM AS A POLITICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ARCHETYPE OF REBIRTH. The most scrupulous political analysis of Marxism cannot explain the influence that it has had over intellectuals and others. This is because Marxism's influence is, in my view, psychological in character. The root of its appeal was that it reactivated a very powerful archetype - that of rebirth. (Jung, 1950). The intellectuals adapted this archetype to the "spirit of time," and gave it an abstract and rationalistic form. My point is that the archetype of rebirth was conceived by some of the intellectuals not as a symbol but as a sign. They projected the archetype outward, into the political realm, and interpreted it as an abstract ideal - that of communist society. Accomplishment of this ideal on earth was for intellectuals the equivalent of the religious promise of bringing man to paradise. Death as the negative side of rebirth was also interpreted in political rather than symbolic terms. It was thought of as a means of achieving a communist society. Death took the form of the proletarian revolution that presupposed violence and blood and was justified as a necessary step to the communist paradise. In such a way the two sides of the archetype of rebirth were theoretically assimilated and then proclaimed. The collective unconscious was projected onto the socio-political realm and took the form of political myth. In its political form the archetype of rebirth influenced and transformed the psyche of the people. If we wish to explain some of the psychic transformations that this myth caused, we need first to analyze its functioning. In so doing, and as a means of stressing the power of 4

the myth, it is important to note that the Russian intellectuals who became communists were a very small fragment of their society. Why, then, did they have such a great success in propagating the communist myth? 1.2. THE INTELLECTUAL AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE. 1) The intellectual as a psychological type is prone to transform his ideas into a creed. The intellectual is a man with highly developed thinking. Ironic but nonetheless true, intellectuals are more prone to be seized by feeling. This proneness operates as compensation for the one-sidedness of the intellectuals' consciousness. Feeling is expressed as a devotion or faith in some kind of -ism (in our case this was Marx-ism). Living thought becomes a creed. This creed is a dogmatic, "stable" thought, the dead body of something which used to be alive. The psychic transformation of the intellectual - from thinker to believer - is a turning point in his personal history. From that point on, feeling and thinking change places. Valuing becomes a leading psychological function, while thinking becomes a compensatory or defensive one. Everything that sustained and protected communist values was thus accepted and justified by the intellectuals who became seized with the communist creed. Thought became slave rather than owner while the lie became the governor of behavior. Observing the lives of intellectuals can reveal very unpleasant and immoral pictures (Johnson, 1988). Analysis of the communist movement reveals this fact - not only on an individual but on a broader societal scale as well. 2) The psychic enantiodromia of the intellectual, the transformation of his thought to a creed, is usually expressed by a strengthening of his will. More than that, when the intellectual identifies himself with a creed - no matter what its content - he is ready to become a leader (political, religious or scientific). He becomes a Superman who experiences his "God-Almightiness". So the intellectual as a psychological type can be described through his main psychological conflict: the conflict between thought and feeling, thought and will. This conflict can lead to profound inconsistencies in thought and behavior (see for example Johnson, 1988). 1.3. TWO TYPES OF COMMUNISTS AND THEIR POLITICAL SYMBIOSIS But the intellectual-communists would have never succeeded in gaining political power if they had not found their natural ally - the worker. By this term the Marxist meant a man of physical labour who was poor and "ha[d] nothing to lose but his chains". From my point of view this man was in many respects the psychological counterpart, the mirror image of the intellectual. If the intellectual admired the word and rationality, the worker admired deeds and instincts. The intellectual is an embodiment of conscious, civilised man while the worker embodies instinctual man. Due to his social position the worker was prone to have an inferiority complex. But the "worker" per se was not dangerous. Danger came from the activation of the archetype of rebirth provided by communism in its political form. It promised a better society based on social justice and equality. Revolution and death were justified as means towards this goal. The latter promoted the psychic enantiodromia of the worker. His inferiority complex was replaced by a will to power. The awakened will merged with a desire for revenge. These two different psychological types formed an inseparable alliance critical to the foundation and success of communism. This alliance - which was postulated by Marxism in its theoretical form - can serve as proof of my thesis that the intellectual is often unconscious of the will to power in himself. This blindness was the reason why intellectuals projected it onto the worker. As for the worker, he needed some kind of creed representing his desire for social change that included punishment (even death) for those who rule over him. In turn he projected his thought- functions outside and found them embodied in the intellectual.

Thus, every communist has two faces and our perception of him can be described in terms of the figure-ground relationship. Which face is seen as a figure depends on 1) the subject under observation - communist intellectual or communist worker, and 2) on contextual factors. As for the communist's self-perception, as has been pointed out, he is largely unconscious of his second face. So the archetype of rebirth in its political form turned out to be a unifying sign for the intellectual and the worker. But the two sides of this symbol were separated. For intellectuals the archetype appeared as a rational, "scientific" idea of communism. For the worker, the archetype appeared as a justified basis for class-revenge and the will to power. Just as two opposites are linked by symbol in an archetype, so the men in whose hearts this archetype was activated formed their political unity - the Communist Party. In such a manner, the political union of creed and will to power was ensured. From a psychological point of view this was one of the main reasons why the Communist Party succeeded in achieving power. II. FROM CIVILIZED TO COLLECTIVE MAN. 2.1. COMMUNIST INFECTION. As described above, the influence and the coming to power of communists was due to activation of the collective unconscious - in particular, the archetype of rebirth. After the victory of the Communist Party, this archetype in its political form, Marxism, was proclaimed by propaganda in a very simple and convinced form. This creed had great influence which can be easily explained as "the standpoint of the creed is archaic; they are full of impressive mythological symbolism." (Jung, 1957). The political myth and other folk mythological motifs amalgamated in the consciousness of the peasants who were the vast majority of the Russian population at the onset of the Russian Revolution,. The Communist Party became the Hero, struggling with the Dragon for the liberation of the people (see for example Platonov, 1990). In accordance with communist ideology, the Hero and the Dragon were projected according to their class differences. The communist and his party were identified with the Hero, the capitalists with the Dragon. The spread of the communist myth was achieved not only by propaganda. The communists also did their best to involve people into different kinds of mass-movements. Their aim was to transform the relatively civilised man, "the man of the past" into a new, collective person, "the man of the future". All these movements - pioneer, youth or communist ones were inspired by the Communist Party in order to promote the collective experience. The military parades, mass demonstrations, regular meetings and the like were utilized to involve the individual in a mass movement towards communism. This collective experience became an inevitable part of the social life. It pervaded all levels of society and encompassed all age groups - thus realizing the goals of the communists by channeling all human energy in their designated directions. It is here useful to point to the two dynamic tendencies operating in the socialist collective movement. When a man is submerged in a group his individual consciousness regresses to lower and primitive states. This causes the influence of the unconscious to increase, with the result that a psychic infection usually occurs. As a result, Ego-consciousness is diminished or underestimated. The second tendency is the opposite. Being in a group the individual Ego is prone to inflation as it unconsciously attributes its collective power to its individuality. This leads to overestimation of the Ego. 6

Communists, particularly the early leaders, were classic Ego-Overestimaters. They became Supermen who knew their one truth (communism) and had discovered the means of reaching it. They were strong and almighty and had their "camaradas" and a mass movement in their support. Being involved in a mass movement, socialist man came under the suggestive power of Communists whose God-Almightiness he adored. He wanted to become as powerful as the Communists were. He believed in the communist myth as the latter gave meaning and direction to his individual life. He did not understand that he would be allowed to experience power only at the sacrifice of his Ego-consciousness. Jung has already described this phenomenon. He wrote: "Where the many are, there is a security, what the many believe must be of course true, what the many want must be worth striving for, and necessary, and therefore good. In the clamor of the many resides the power to snatch wish-fulfillment by force; sweetest of all, however, is that gentle and painless slipping back into the kingdom of the childhood, into the paradise of parental care, into happy-go-luckiness and irresponsibility. All the thinking and looking after are done from the top, to all questions there is an answer, and for all needs the necessary provision paradise. The infantile dream-state of the mass-man is so unrealistic that he never thinks to ask who is paying for the paradise. The balancing of account is left to a higher political or social authority, which welcomes the task, for its power is thereby increased and the more power it has, the weaker and more helpless the individual becomes." (Jung, 1957, p.277) So the collective man in us was awakened. He had one collective idea - that of communism, one dominating feeling - that of "God-Almightiness", and one collective god the Communist Party. 2.2. THE COMMUNIST SHADOW AND THE FIGHT AGAINST IT. The Shadow had existed in the Communist idea from the very beginning. It was capitalist society, in particular the capitalist class. While the projection of the Shadow in a socio-political space was not unique to the communists, we need to explain the mechanisms by which this archetype functioned in socialist society. The most striking fact here is that this archetype became one of the basic dynamic forces operating in the psyche of socialist man. I have already pointed out the conflict between Idea and Will to Power as a major feature of the communist psyche. This conflict gave rise to the appearance of the Shadow and its projection on the political stage. The split between Idea and Will to Power existed in two different forms. The communist who consciously adored the Communist idea was not aware of his will to power. This Will became the Shadow he feared. The communist who adored power and got it through the communist creed was unconsciously afraid of any thought different from the creed. So his Shadow was the Thought itself. The communist Shadow thus took two abstract forms - that of Will and that of Thought. But socialist society needed to be inspired only by one Thought - that of Communism, and to be ruled only by one Will - that of the Communist Party. Thus communists declared war - against the Shadow - and achieved great success in that war. But the war, which pervaded the Communist Party from the very beginning, also existed at all levels of society. Why? The secret is simple. When our Shadow takes the form of a psychic ability or function it can be personified almost automatically and without much difficulty. When unconscious desires for thought or for power bother us we can easily suspect them everybody else. When the Shadow takes an abstract form of Thought or Will to Power she can be projected on every human being. That is why socialism has been so overwhelmingly destructive. The communist fight against the Shadow in fact became a war against human rationality - a war of man against himself. 7

So the communist underwent his psychic enandiodromia. His adoration of thought and rationalism was replaced by a war against them. The "Great Terror" in the USSR was caused by the spread of the Shadow over all of society. The personification of the Shadow was interpreted in political terms as a fight with an "Enemy" of socialism. Terror was considered to be an expression of class struggle. Stalin wrote: "With the victory of the socialism the class struggle will not decrease but increase." The existence of two forms of the Shadow did not mean that the fight with the "Enemy" proceeded along different lines. The political enemy was often dealt with by attributing subversive ideas to him while the ideological enemy was accused of such "counter-revolutionary activity" as spying. In both cases the singular objective was the destruction of the "Enemy," with the actual content of the accusations used to achieve the destruction being of no importance. The spread of the Shadow over all of society was akin to a mass-psychosis as political life entirely lost its rational character. The discovery of Stalinism was that the Image of the Shadow, i.e. the "Enemy," could be dynamic, not merely static. Thus, in socialist society the "Enemy" as the personified form of the Shadow did not have any stable characteristics political, religious or individual. The "Enemy" was not the capitalist only but the worker as well, the Christian and also the atheist, the peasant and the intellectual, the communist as well as the non-communist. 2.3. REACTIVATION OF THE RELIGIOUS FUNCTION. The unbelievable plasticity of the image of the Shadow made all efforts at rational explanation of the social situation invalid (Ginzburg, 1990; Grossman, 1990; Rybakov, 1988). Explanation became possible only in terms of the invasion of the collective unconsciousness into the sphere of political-social life. And, as rationality disappeared, the religious function became increasingly visible. It is a psychological phenomenon that "When through mass rule, the individual becomes social unit number so-and-so and the State is elevated to the supreme principle, it is only to be expected the religious function too will be sucked into the maelstrom... Its evident purpose is to maintain the psychic balance..." (Jung, 1956, p. 259.) Religious feeling was expressed as a projection of the God-image onto the leader of the State-Party. If the causal explanation of the situation did not work, the opposite, teleological one was to be applied. Everything could be explained as Will of the Man-God. We did not know. But He was the One who knew. We had to become humble before the mystical power of the Man-God. The communist leader, Stalin, was conceived as a personification of the Judaic God Jehovah. He was good and severe, just and cruel, kind and punishing - all at the same time. He was the embodiment of the mystic and irrational power whose will was incomprehensible. So the Shadow of the communist and the war against it woke up the archaic element in man. Once again it was proved that: "the religious function cannot be disposed of by rationalistic and so-called enlightened criticism... Religion, in the sense of conscientious regard for the irrational factors of the psyche and individual fate, reappears - evilly distorted - in the deification of the State and the dictator." (Jung, 1957, p. 261) Socialist man as the archaic one ceased to be the master of the world. He turned out to be but a fragment of it. All his efforts were directed to self-preservation, to survival in the face of the vicissitudes of Fate. The force that governed his fate was projected outside onto the political world. The Communist Leader was the mystical power who gave order and direction to society. In many respects, the Communist Leader played a role similar to that of the "mana personality". The Communist Leader was considered as a divine figure, as seen by the fact that:

a) Stalin's death was experienced by the vast majority of people as an awful event - a catastrophe, leaving socialist man entirely helpless and alone without his God. b) The practice of balsamation of communist leaders was widely spread in socialist countries, thereby sustaining the illusion of life after death. c) In Stalin's period the archaic practice of sacrification was also reactivated, as the communist God required sacrifices and all people needed to be ready to offer them. (If for primitives sacrifice was a symbolic ritual, for socialist man it was everyday practice, a means of survival.) Thus, in many respects, man of the Stalinist age was like archaic man. But there were differences. 1) Archaic man was concrete. He projected his unconsciousness onto Nature and certain objects. Socialist man also projected it, but onto abstract forms - those of the Party or the State. This abstraction was the power that ruled over him, thereby revealing the origin of socialist man as civilised man regressed to archaic man. At the same time, this projection also had its personified forms. In particular the Party-State was personified by the Communist Leader. Louis Quatorze words "L'etat c'est moi!" could be attributed to Stalin. But those words expressed not only the dictator's almightiness but also the way he was perceived by the people living in his totalitarian state. 2) There is a definite difference between the sacrifices offered by primitive and socialist man. For the primitive, sacrifice was an attempt to propitiate an angry God. Socialist mans sacrifice was an act of self-denial for an abstract idea - the People, the Party, Communism. 3) The social life of the primitive is determined to a great extent by the collective unconsciousness he projected onto nature. Socialist man withdrew this projection from nature but entirely imposed it on political life, which made such life subject to the power of political myth. III. THE COMPENSATORY FORCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS. 3.1. APPEARANCE OF THE PERSONA. PERSONA-COMMUNIST AND PERSONA-MEDIOCRITY. IDENTIFICATION VS. DIFFERENTIATION FROM PERSONA. Thus, communism began with an archetypal idea that was semiotically interpreted and caused the regression of civilised man to an archaic one. The collective and personal unconsciousness were activated and the social life was ruled by the communist political myth. Irrational society and archaic man became a norm, the rational one an exception. But we need to be more attentive, more cautious. The regressive tendency that led to activation of the archaic man co-existed with the opposite tendency. The latter was compensatory and was connected with the activity of the consciousness. Let us consider this compensatory force. It was based on the attempts of the socialist man to preserve his rationality and his individuality to the extent possible. The analysis of this tendency is of great importance as it gradually increased and at last led to the self-destruction of socialism. How could one preserve the civilised man in himself in the irrational socialist society? By imitating, by putting on a mask, by becoming a Persona. Here, two masks turned to be the most adaptive ones - the masks of the communist and of mediocrity. Persona-communist imitated the man-God, but could hardly consider himself as such. The presumption of ancestral innocence was refused to him if he lacked a communist origin. His fall could be redeemed only through fanatic service. Every day he had to prove the 9

almightiness of the communist and to support his regime. To be integrated into the system, the Persona-communist had to be greater communist then the communist. He was, of course, a contradictory and ambivalent figure. This manifested itself in the unscrupulousness of his behavior. He was nobody for the communists higher in the hierarchy but was almighty God to those under him. But not only the communist created his double (duplicate). Non-communists put on their masks as well -in their cases the masks of mediocrity and worthlessness. In order to survive the Persona-mediocrity no longer needed to offer a sacrifice. It was enough to pretend loyalty to the regime - to agree with everything coming from above, to applaud the Party's wise decisions, to take part in meetings and demonstrations, never toexpress an opinion different from the official one. Persona-mediocrity was another form of the collective individual formed in the first phase of the socialism. She just duplicated it. From a psychological point of view Persona-mediocrity was also ambivalent. She was torn between the desire to take off her mask and prove her identity on the one hand, and the desire to be as mediocre as possible on the other. During this time the consciousness-Shadow also underwent certain transformations. Open confrontation against Marxist dogmas was impossible. In order to survive, consciousness had to put on a mask. Culture became an imitation game in which loyalty to the Party was of utmost importance. Persona-culture had to have a class form which distorted its content but left something behind. Thus socialist society and man living in it gradually changed. From a society of Shadows it became a society of Masks. Continuous Mask-wearing had negative as well as positive consequences. On the one hand the mask "stuck" forever to the face and became an inherent identity for the individual identified with it, with the Persona-communist transformed into man-God and the Persona-mediocrity into the collective individual. The positive consequences related to the search for identity generated by mask-wearing generated. 3.2. THE SEARCH FOR IDENTITY. COMMUNIST-REFORMER VS. DISSIDENT Through the Mask the individual attained a certain flexibility and plasticity. In the process, he became an Actor. Thus, a new figure appeared from the man-mask - the Actor. The difference between Persona-man and Actor-Persona lay in the fact that Persona-man imitated as unconsciously as the Actor-Persona did so consciously. Both imitated but the imitation had a different character - the Actor-Persona knew that he was playing. He wore his mask in order to keep the conscious man in him, as the only means available to him to preserve the civilised man in himself. It this way, the actor obtained his inner freedom - a freedom of reminiscence. Consciousness returned to him like a forbidden fruit, and the half-forgotten, conscious man reappeared behind the mask. The Actor-persona was of course an ambivalent figure. His ambivalence was determined by his attitude towards the mask. When playing, the Actor forgot about himself and entirely submitted to the logic of his mask-role. Inside, he continued the search for his identity. The more talented the actor, the greater his imitation ability, the greater his desire to find his own identity. The Man-Actor took part in an absurd play, called life. Real life had become reminiscence and its play, its imitation - a reality. There was no plot in this play, which was entirely devoid of sense. For the same deed one could get either sanctioned or applauded. The law was a chameleon mantle - one for the communists another for ordinary people, one for some circumstances another for others, one for today another - tomorrow. The declared Marxist dogmas had become ghosts. In fact social life was governed not by them but by the struggle for power. Fraternity was declared, but each man was enemy of 10

the other rather than his brother. Justice was declared but the social inequality grew greater. The social norm was divorced from its actual character. The only essential characteristic of society was the absence of any definitiveness, the constant transition from one opposite to another (Zinoviev, 1979, Ignatov, 1985, Gerdgikov, 1991). Socialist utopia had created its opposite - anti-utopian world, a world of the absurdity, as in the inscription on the entry to Eurasia in Orwell's "1984" "Freedom is a slavery. Peace is a war. Truth is a lie." In this world the ministry of truth dealt with its falsification, the ministry of peace was engaged in war and so on. Let us summarize. Two relatively opposite dynamic tendencies co-existed in socialist man. The first was regressive, a step backwards to the unconscious psychic structures. The second was compensatory, and tended to keep the conscious psychic structures. The first brought to psychic archaization, the mythologization of the social world and the Shadow domination of it. The foundation and the establishment of socialism was a victory of this very tendency, which brought pathology to social life. But the tendency to normalization associated with consciousness exists even in the pathological world. In the socialist society, however, that very consciousness had been transformed into a Shadow. But it kept coming back as reminiscence. This reminiscence reminded people of the existence of civilised man, of man living in another world where thought and will were inherent human rights. This reminiscence became stronger and stronger as the Shadow and Persona faded away. The antiutopic socialist world desperately sought its way back - to civilization. As the circle closed the archetype of rebirth was reactivated. As had already happened 80 years before, it was interpreted in two relatively opposite ways. The first interpretation is familiar to us. The rebirth could be accomplished by means of social-political "rebuilding" (perestroika) of socialism. To achieve this, the Shadow had to be "withdrawn" or "shortened" and the Persona given the freedom to "reveal" her face. Thus perestroika began, the communist-reformer being its chief inspirer. The Shadow was first withdrawn from the place where it was longest and darkest - the capitalist anti-world. The iron curtain fell. The evil enemy of communism became friend. As far as Persona was concerned she could take off her mask, as the relation between audience and actor had undergone radical change. Audience and actors merged and everyone sought to share the experience he had lived through during the absurd play. That is how "glasnost" arrived - as the strange joy of shared pain. Glasnost was the socialist man's cry and sob, as he mourned the loss of his civilised origin. It was an acknowledgement that the Shadow had existed as an integral part of socialism, as the Alter Ego of its people. Glasnost was in its essence an attempt at self-discovery, and it was dramatic and painful for all. For the first time in years collective man saw himself in the mirror - and found himself so different from what he had pretended to be that he uttered a terrible cry: "Is this really me?" Some denied it. Others used it as a means of catharsis. But the communist-reformer could not escape from his character. He was a contradictory figure, and two desires fought in him - the will to political power and the desire for the resurrection of socialist idea. The main aim of perestroika was to reform socialism. The acknowledgement of the Shadow was part of the reform, but its final goal was socialism's rebirth. The socialist idea was to be the phoenix-bird. The archetype of rebirth was once again interpreted in social-political terms. The socialist idea had to resurrected and then fulfilled by the Communist Party. The Shadow discovered by glasnost was declared accidental - it could be successively eliminated reforming socialism. The ambivalence of the communist-reformer became clearer and clearer. His words became deeds only when they concerned international relations, but at home they were 11

transformed to their opposite. The communist-reformer stood for democracy, but tanks entered the Baltic states with his consent. He stood for freedom but sought in every way to preserve the power of the Party-state. The perestroika attempt showed only one thing - the delusion of perestroika. Perestroika began as a version of the communist myth, turned into a play and then concluded as farce - proving (once again) the impossibility of real political action in an absurd anti-society. Perestroika's outcome logically ended in its denial. The process also experienced the denouncement of the socialist idea and the transformation of some communist-reformers into anti-Communists. The latter denounced not only the idea, but the Communist Party as well, describing socialist society as an anti-society that could not be reformed but should be rebuilt. In this way the communist bred his mirror opposite - the anti-Communist. The transformation of the communist into anti-Communist put an end to socialist society and served to begin postsocialist society. But anti-communism already existed among other social groups, in particular among some intellectuals. Some had refused to take Marxism as their creed, and had faced a survival or self-sacrifice dilemma - which they had resolved in one of two ways: 1) To survive at the expense of his "split" personality, one resolution was to wear a mask before the audience - to be an Actor vis-a-vis the outside world. Only at home and among friends were true feelings and thoughts revealed. This adaptation was of course neurotic. 2) The other resolution involved throwing away the Mask and taking up political struggle - to become an intellectual-dissident. This person was the opposite of the Man-Actor who longed for his identity but had not found it, whose life was pre-determined by the play and by the role imposed on him. On the other hand the dissident was the person who understood that only by refusing to take part in the play scripted by the communists could he save the inner conscious man in him. He stepped from the stage and refused to take part in the play. The dissident was at the forefront of the struggle with the communist system. He was brave enough to undertake combat against the multiheaded Dragon-Party-State. He did so even though his political resistance was absurd, and its only possible outcome total defeat. But his political struggle was not an aim, but a means, a mean of preserving his personal integrity. The dissident was not struggling for political power - he was struggling for his right to be an individual not a collective man, for his freedom from puppetry at the hands of State and Party. And this longing for individuality was so strong that he consciously chose self-sacrifice. From a psychological point of view the dissident became a symbol of another attitude towards the archetype of rebirth. According to him, rebirth was only possible through self-sacrifice. This was the way of Christ, and the dissident chose the path of the New Testament. In this sense he was not only a political but a symbolic figure as well. He was the bearer of the Christian interpretation of the archetype of rebirth. In the atheistic socialist society the dissidents rather than clergymen resurrected the inner civilised man in us. In other words the dissident's influence on socialist, collective man was not so much political as psychic. His life resembled the life of Christ - he had a handful of followers and was always betrayed by his Judas informers. The betrayed dissident fell in the hands of KGB and was crucified. His life was a symbol of self-sacrifice which caused (and in some cases was even aimed at) a wakening of the collective men around him. The dissident became an example for all, proving that it was possible to throw away the mask, to be honest and free. He showed the rest of us that we could assume our responsibilities to ourselves. Thus it was the dissident and not the communist reformer who performed the miracle. He placed the mirror in front of collective man, allowing the latter to see himself and the


story of his fall. In such a way the wakening of the conscious man hidden in us became possible. If the communist reformer had permitted glasnost, it was the dissident who had prepared the soil for it. Because glasnost as self-knowledge was possible only as a moral act. IV. POSTSOCIALIST SOCIETY AND THE ARCHETYPE OF REBIRTH. 4.1. TRANSITION TOWARDS DEMOCRACY, INTELLECTUALS AND THE ARCHTYPE OF REBIRTH. We are now living in a transitional society - we are witnessing socio-political enantiodromia as a movement from socialist to democratic society. Socialism as an idea has shown its failure, but our future is still unclear. We need new ideas about ourselves and world. The absurdity of socialism, the social political vicissitudes once again lead to reactivation of the archetype of rebirth. Post-socialist man faces the conflict between the two main interpretations of this archetype: socio-political and Christian. Perhaps history itself is testing what we have learned from its painful lessons. This conflict has been most fully experienced by the intellectual. Some intellectuals resolved it easily - they took leadership of the new democratic movement. Its aim is twofold - to gain political power through elections and to build a democratic society in a constitutional manner - through changes in laws. These two tasks put the intellectual into a new existential situation - he became involved in the political struggle and in the intellectual activity of creating new democratic laws as well. The political struggle in postsocialist society naturally takes the form of political confrontation between new and old political parties. In this struggle the Shadow and Persona in their abstract and personified forms again turn out to be the main figures. The collective unconscious plays an important role in the mass movement. From a psychological point of view, political life is in many respects similar to that which took place in socialist societies. The fault is often entirely projected upon another - this time the Shadow is projected upon the communists. The Persona reigns once again - this time it is put onto the communists. There are too many insinuations, too many analogies - only the places of the main characters on the political scene have been changed. Of course the danger lies not in politics itself but rather in attitudes towards it. The Superman and the Hero remain at risk of reappearing in the heart of the post-socialist democrat. The God-image is a psychic mechanism that is relatively independent of an individual's political orientation. Even the democrat can inflate if identifying himself with an idea or a political movement. He can once again paraphrase: "La democracy c'est moi!" Psychic maladaptation has no political colour. Is there any possibility for the intellectual not to be trapped by the same psychic forces that overrode his political enemy - the communist? We have already considered the danger hidden in the socio-political interpretation of the archetype of rebirth. As Jung put it a long time ago, every political movement provokes "the dangerous tendency to expect everything from outside - even the metamorphosis which external reality can not provide." (Jung, 1957, p.306) After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world is once again facing the necessity of an appropriate interpretation of the archetype of rebirth. There at least three interpretations of this archetype in European civilisation pre-Christian or barbaric (embodied in different mysteries and the ritual of initiation), Christian (embodied in the life of Jesus Christ) and communist (embodied in social political myth). The last was anti-Christian. The main differences between Christian and communist interpretations are: 13

In Christianity, rebirth was considered as an individual and moral act - as following the Ten Commandments and the life of Christ as an ideal. In the communist interpretation, rebirth was seen not as a spiritual transformation but as a social-political one. An attempt to create a moral codex of the communist was simplified and rationalistic and did not have the emotional power of Christianity. Rebirth in the Christian interpretation has a transcendental character, it is connected with the discovery of the God-image in ourselves. Rebirth in the communist interpretation is a matter of social engineering, a matter of building a new social organisation. The communists and their Party were chosen to provide the revival of the world and to create paradise on earth - here and now. It is obvious that the Christian interpretation could be considered as an introverted interpretation of the archetype of rebirth - it is directed towards self-transformation based on following the leadership of Christ. The communist interpretation is extroverted. Rebirth is seen as social political change that should lead to changes in the individual and to creation of the new man. 4.2. TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF REBIRTH AND THE NECESSITY OF THEIR INTEGRATION. The beginning of the XX century proved the shortcomings of the Christian interpretation and brought us atheism. The end of the XX century proved the groundlessness of the communist interpretation. It is more and more evident that one of the remarkable features of the present world situation is the necessity to create a new identity based on a new interpretation of the archetype of rebirth (Jung, 1951). First it seems that West Europe has to reinterpret its Christian past while East Europe has to deal with its communist past. But that is a great oversimplification. We should pay attention to strong compensatory tendencies. In East Europe, there is a tendency to go back to the Christian religion while in West Europe, there is increasing sensitivity towards social democratic ideals /especially among the intellectuals/. Intellectuals today are facing a necessity of reflecting and reconsidering the archetype of rebirth. Of course, living in different social and spiritual situations, the intellectuals have different perspectives. The western intellectual is often an adherent of social democratic ideas, he is critical of the society he lives in and it is normal indeed. But now after the collapse of the socialism in East Europe, he has to take into account the misery that the extroverted interpretation brought to people living under socialism. In this way he may become more conscious about his illusions of the political path as the main way to rebirth. This means that he has to integrate the experience of the eastern intellectuals. At the same time he has to reconsider the Christian interpretation and to discover its potential for revival. The intellectuals living in East Europe are in a different situation. Some of them were once again involved in political struggle. Other stayed outside politics. They see their main task within the cultural sphere - to create cultural mechanisms strengthening civilised man within us. Many of them are once again facing the Christian interpretation and considering its strengths and shortcomings. It becomes clear that the development of contemporary man is not possible without overcoming the split between the two interpretations of the archetype of rebirth introverted, Christian and extroverted or social-political. One can suggest that this development needs a new type of intellectual - the intellectual who consciously refuses to be a hero. Some of his features can be described as follows: This intellectual is not a thinking but an intuitive type. He is aware of the limits and dangers of thought considered as the only truth. He does not want to be the leader - political or intellectual. He is not willing to convert others to his belief. He overcomes the temptation to seek power (intellectual or political) for the sake of reviving spiritual man within us. 14

He is conscious of his own Shadow and he has left his Persona in order to develop the Self. He has human size but at the same time he experiences himself as the child of God. His human drama is the drama of a being with spiritual and social characteristics. His task is to integrate both of them. He is aware of the necessity of the democratisation of society but at the same time he knows that political development cannot automatically lead to spiritual enlightenment or self-realisation. He experiences the conflict between the social and the spiritual, and recognises the need for keeping a balance between them. The balance between human and transcendent, temporal and eternal, that is based on its differentiation from one side and its integration - from the other side (Berdiaev, 1938, Novgorodzev, 1918). The biblical saying To render to God what is his, and to Caesar what belongs to him nowadays cannot be considered as an incompatibility between the spiritual and the social but as a need to differentiate between them in order to be able to integrate. The question arises: Where will this type of the intellectual come from? The answer is very simple. There is no need for this type of intellectual to appear, since he has always existed. He has provided the continuity of the cultural tradition. He is the man for whom the meaning of life has always been to create a whole out of the historical and contemporary, eternal and external, social and transcendent, personal and collective. The fate of this type of intellectual very often used to be a tragedy, especially in Soviet Russia. The reason was that the extroverted intellectual-communist considered the introverted intellectual-anti-hero to be his most evil enemy. The anti-hero was scarified without hesitation. But in doing this, the extroverted intellectual had sacrificed a part of himself and thus made impossible his own development. He denied the unconscious part of himself in order to be a hero. From that point of view, socialism can be interpreted as a reality in which heroism was linked with social violence while anti-heroism, linked with self-sacrifice, was needed to preserve the spiritual realm within us. A few more words about the phenomenon of transition: It seems that this transition is not restricted to the social political changes in Eastern Europe but is spread at least over all of Europe. Its course depends on how East and West meet on all levels - political, cultural, spiritual. This meeting of East and West can be a very risky and dramatic process as they have been split for a long time and now suffer the consequences. This meeting usually coincides with psychic inflation - overestimation or underestimation of ones own history and of each other. Reconsidering the archetype of rebirth is one possible way to carry out the integration of East and West Europe. The intellectuals have to reconsider this archetype within the context of the historical fate of Europe, particularly in the twentieth century. East European communist-intellectuals were the main inspirations and actors of the social movement that led to socialism so they are more responsible for the social drama of Europe that took place in the XX century. Personal development of communist-intellectuals is connected with critical reflection of the extroverted interpretation of the archetype of rebirth that caused a lot of blood and misery to nations. But responsibility for East European history is not only theirs; it should be shared by all social characters involved in its drama. Everybody has his own fault and responsibility. At the same time the development of each social character is not possible without realising the other in us. Our inner transformation is a process that is still forthcoming. Nowadays we need a new form of spirituality - spirituality that does not despise or flee from social matters, but could not be reduced to or inferred from them.1 At the same time we need a new type of politics where the spiritual dimension has to be taken into account. In other words, we need a new interpretation of the archetype of rebirth. It should transcend both the Christian and the political interpretation.

Thus we are coming back to the beginning of the century when this idea was considered by some Russian thinkers but could not affect the political movement (Berdiaev, 1938, 1948; Frank, 1909; Novgorodzev, 1918; Struve, 1909). 15

Bibliography: Berdiaev, N.A. 1938 - Krizis intelekta i missia intellegenzii. V: Inteligentsia. Vlast. Narod. Antologia. Moskwa., Nauka. 1993 (in Russian) Berdiaev, N.A. 1948 - The origin of Russian communism. 2-d ed. London. Bernstein J.S., 1992 - The transendent function and the collective unconscious. In: Transformation., vol.22, No.4 Bulgakov S.N., 1909 - Geroism i podvignichestvo. V: Vehi. Moskwa, Novosti. 1990. Reprint (in Russian) Frank L., 1909 - Etika nihilizma. V: Vehi. Moskwa, Novosti. 1990. Reprint.(in Russian) Gerdgikov S. 1990 - Fenomenat comunism. sp. Sovremenik. N2 (in Bulgarian) Ginzburg E., 1990 - Krutoi marshrut. Moskwa, Sovetskii pisatel, (in Russian) Georgiev R., 1992 - Disfunczionalki totalitarni modeli na choveshkite vsaimootnoshenia. V: Mejdunaroden seminar po decomunisatsia. Sofia, Dialog-Holding, 175-188 (in Bulgarian) 1. Georgieva G., 1992 - Problema za svrahotgovornostta v omunistiches-koto i postcomunistichesko obshestvo. V: Mejdunaroden seminar po deco-munisatsia. Sofia, DialogHolding, 175-188 (in Bulgarian) 2. Grossman V., 1990 - Gizn i sudba. Moskwa., Sovetskii pisatel. (in Russian)


Ignatov A., 1985 - Psychologie des Kommunismus. Verlag, Munchen Illin I.A. 1927 - O russkoi intelegentsia. V: Intelligentsia. Vlast. Narod. Antologia. Moskwa, Nauka. 1993, (in Russian) Johnson P., 1988 - The intellectuals. Harper & Row, N.Y. Jung G., 1921 - Psychological types. Vol.6 Jung G., 1928 - The relationship between the Ego and the Unconscious. In: Two essays on analytical psychology. Vol.7 Jung G., 1931 - The archaic man. In: The collected works of C.G. Jung. Vol.10 Jung G., 1945 - After the catastrophe. vol. 10 Jung G., 1946 - Preface and Eilogue to "Essays on contemporary events" Vol.10 Jung G., 1946 - The fight with the Shadow. vol. 10 Jung G., 1950 - Concerning rebirth. In: "The archetype and the collective unconscious" vol. 9, p.I Jung G., 1951 - Researches into the phenomenology of the Self. Vol. 9. p. II (Aion) Jung G., 1957 - Undiscovered Self (Present and Future). Vol. 10. Kafka F., 1969 - Protses. Moskwa ( in Russian) Kamen G., 1994 - The rulers, the victims and the silence (a possible outline towards a psychoanalytic understanding of totalitarianism) - unpublished manuscript. 30 p. Koestler A., 1984 - Darkness at noon. 1941, The Macmillan Company Kundera M., 1989 - Shegata. sp.Panorama, N2 (in Bulgarian) Markov G., 1990 - Zadochni reportagi za Bulgaria. Profizdat (in Bulgarian) Minev D., 1994 - Prehoda - illusii i realnosti. V: Prehoda i sotsialnite nauki. (in Bulgarianin print) Novgorodtsev P.I., 1918 - O putiah i zadachah ruskoi intelligentsii. V: Intelligentsia. Vlast. Narod. Antologia. Moskwa, Nauka. 1993, (in Russian) Orwell G., 1945 - Animal farm. L. Platonov A., 1988 - Gosudarstvenii gitel. Moskwa. Sovetskii pisatel. Orwell G., 1948 - "1984" Orwell G., 1987 - The collected essays, journalism and letters of George Orwell Vol. 1 Platonov A., 1988 - Gosudarstvenyi zgitel. Moskwa, Sovetskii pisatel, (in Russian) Rybakov A., 1988 - Deti Arbata. (in Russian) Stepun F.A., 1959 - Proletarskaia revolutsia i revolutsionii orden ruskoi intelligenttsii. V: Intelligentsia. Vlast. Narod. Antologia. Moskwa., Nauka, 1993, 286-303, (in Russian) Struve P.B., 1909 - Intelligentsia I revolutsia. V: Intelligentsia. Vlast. Narod. Antologia. Moskwa., Nauka. 1993, 190-204, (in Russian) Samuels A., 1989 - The plural psyche. L. & N.Y. Routledge Solgenizcin A., 1973 - Arhipelag Gulag. Paris (in Russian) Solgenizcin A., 1974 - V kruge pervom. Frankfurt a M. (in Russian) Zamiatin E., 1975 - We. Boston: Gregg Press. Zinoviev A., 1979 - The yawning heights. N.Y. Random house.