The “-ism:” One of Jung’s Betes Noire

Sue Mehrtens is the author of this and all the other blog essays on this site. The opinions expressed in these essays are her own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of other Jungian Center faculty or Board members. Honesty, as well as professional courtesy, require that you give proper attribution to the author if you post this essay elsewhere.



The “-ism:” One of Jung’s Bêtes Noire



“Our fearsome gods only changed their names: they now rhyme with –ism.”

Jung (1946)[1]


“… The political and social isms of our day preach every conceivable ideal, but, under this mask, they pursue the goal of lowering the level of our culture by restricting or altogether inhibiting the possibilities of individual development….”

Jung (1950)[2]


“With more foreboding than real knowledge, most people feel afraid of the menacing power that lies fettered in each of us, only waiting for the magic word to release it from the spell. This magic word, which always ends in ‘ism,’ works most successfully with those who have the least access to their interior selves and have strayed the furthest from their instinctual roots into the truly chaotic world of collective consciousness.”

Jung (1954)[3]



Like all human beings, Jung had his likes and dislikes and particular things that roused his ire. One thing that presented problems appears repeatedly in his writing: the “-ism.” Just what this means, examples Jung gave of –isms, and why he thought some -isms were pernicious are the subject of this essay.




The dictionary defines –ism as a suffix used “to form nouns corresponding to verbs in –ize;” and such a noun can be an “action; practice, as in baptism, criticism; a quality, characteristic, state, condition, as in heroism, Americanism, paganism; a doctrine, system, principle, as in stoicism, communism; an illustration, case, instance, as in colloquialism, witticism; or an unhealthy condition caused by an excess of ___, as in alcoholism, morphinism.” The root of this suffix is the Greek ismos, meaning “action of.”[4] In other words, by the addition of –ism, we turn an adjective into a noun.


Examples of –isms


The dictionary provided eleven examples. More to our purpose are Jung’s examples. The Index to The Collected Works lists 115 –isms, from aestheticism[5] to vitalism.[6] Some of these are central to Jung’s work as a psychiatrist, e.g. autism,[7] automatism,[8] behaviorism,[9] egoism,[10] egotism,[11] empiricism,[12] hypnotism,[13] irrationalism,[14] mesmerism,[15] narcissism,[16] psychologism,[17] somnambulism,[18] symbolism,[19] and transvestism.[20]

Others relate to his wider interests in religion (agnosticism,[21] Gnosticism,[22] Catharism,[23] Buddhism,[24] Catholicism,[25] Hinduism,[26] Judaism,[27] Manichaeism,[28] Mithraism,[29] mysticism,[30] pietism,[31] polytheism,[32] Protestantism,[33] spiritualism,[34] Sufism,[35] Taoism,[36] totemism,[37] tritheism[38]), alchemy (cabalism,[39] manticism,[40] scholasticism,[41] vitalism[42]), philosophy (humanism,[43] idealism,[44] nominalism,[45] scholasticism,[46] Sophism,[47] transcendentalism,[48]), and social and cultural history (e.g. expressionism,[49] occultism,[50] paternalism,[51] quietism,[52] and syncretism[53]).

Some –isms played an important role in Jung’s methodology, e.g. dualism,[54] monism,[55] realism,[56] personalism,[57] pluralism,[58] rationalism,[59] sensationalism,[60] skepticism,[61] spiritualism,[62] subjectivism,[63] and synchronism.[64] –Isms like these reflect his focus on persons, rather than groups (personalism, subjectivism), his interest in type differences between Introverts and Extraverts, Sensates and Intuitives[65] (monism, pluralism, realism, rationalism, sensationalism), his Heraclitean sense of reality[66] as a series of oppositions (dualism), and his recognition of the phenomenon of synchronicity (synchronism).

Like the above, the vast majority of the –isms mentioned in the 18 volumes of Jung’s Collected Works were not bêtes noire. But some Jung found objectionable: atheism,[67] causalism,[68] collectivism,[69] communism,[70] concretism,[71] dogmatism,[72] existentialism,[73] fanaticism,[74] Fascism,[75] individualism,[76] intellectualism,[77] liberalism,[78] materialism,[79] nationalism,[80] positivism,[81] scientism,[82] socialism,[83] and totalitarianism.[84] His objections were not so much because of the suffix (-ism) but what the word, as a noun, represented. We can better understand this, and glean more understanding of Jung and his thought, by investigating why Jung found these –isms negative.


Why Some –isms Were Jung’s Bête Noires


There are some general reasons for Jung’s negative reaction to some –isms. First is his dislike of theory: “Theories in psychology are the very devil.” he wrote in the Foreword to the third edition of volume 17 of his Collected Works,[85] and this is because theories are impersonal, “cloaking” “lack of experience and ignorance,”[86] and fostering “bigotedness, superficiality, and scientific sectarianism.”[87] The process of turning an adjective into a noun often results in an abstract concept that is impersonal.

Jung was always concerned for the person, the individual, as the carrier of consciousness[88] and the only source of genuine change. So it is understandable that he disliked any –ism that “suffocated”[89] or hindered individual development and freedom. Political and social –isms that dealt with people in collective ways drew his ire.

Similarly, Jung disliked big groups, mass movements and activities that distracted the individual from tending to his/her inner life, so –isms like aestheticism, expressionism, escapism, Futurism, and sensationalism he found objectionable.[90] He felt -isms could foster chaos and anarchy:

“The political and social isms of our day preach every conceivable ideal, but, under this mask, they pursue the goal of lowering the level of our culture by restricting or altogether inhibiting the possibilities of individual development. They do this partly by creating a chaos controlled by terrorism, a primitive state of affairs that affords only the barest necessities of life and surpasses in horror the worst times of the so-called ‘Dark’ Ages. It remains to be seen whether this experience of degradation and slavery will once more raise a cry for greater spiritual freedom.”[91]

“The interregnum is full of danger, for the natural facts will raise their claim in the form of various –isms, which are productive of nothing but anarchy and destruction because inflation and man’s hubris between them have elected to make the ego, in all its ridiculous paltriness, lord of the universe….”[92]

They can stimulate bigotry:

“But if he is independent enough to recognize the bigotedness of the social ‘ism,’ he may then be threatened with subjective inflation, for usually he is not capable of seeing that religious ideas do not, in psychological reality, rest solely upon tradition and faith, but originate with the archetypes, the ‘careful consideration’ of which—religere!—constitutes the essence of religion….”[93]

and often come along with fanatical belief:

“It is … possible that the unconscious harbors contents so powered with energy that under other conditions they would be bound to become perceptible to the ego. In the majority of cases they are not repressed contents, but simply contents that are not yet conscious and have not been subjectively realized, like the demons and gods of the primitives or the ‘isms’ so fanatically believed in by modern man….”[94]

Jung did not have a very positive image of “Western man,” and this extended to the role that –isms play in his actions:

“… you get a complete picture of Western man—assiduous, fearful, devout, self-abasing, enterprising, greedy, and violent in his pursuit of the goods of this world: possessions, health, knowledge, technical mastery, public welfare, political power, conquest, and so on. What are the great popular movements of our time? Attempts to grab the money or property of others and to protect our own. The mind is chiefly employed in devising suitable ‘isms’ to hide the real motives or to get more loot….”[95]

People like this have lost touch with the “angels of their better nature”[96] and have become imbalanced and ungrounded, which is another danger with –isms:

“Alienation from the unconscious and from its historical conditions spells rootlessness. That is the danger that lies in wait for the conqueror of foreign lands, and for every individual who, through one-sided allegiance to any kind of –ism, loses touch with the dark, maternal, earthy ground of his being.”[97]

-Isms also encourage delusion and credulity:

“To the extent that the insignificance of the individual is a truth, suggestive methods, technical procedures, and theorems in any shape or form are entirely capable of success and guarantee results with the universal man—as for instance, Christian Science, mental healing, faith cures, remedial training, medical and religious techniques, and countless other isms. …”[98]

This can lead to people getting swept up in mass movements, lured on by some demagogue able to manipulate their unconscious fears:

“With more foreboding than real knowledge, most people feel afraid of the menacing power that lies fettered in each of us, only waiting for the magic word to release it from the spell. This magic word, which always ends in ‘ism,’ works most successfully with those who have the least access to their interior selves and have strayed the furthest from their instinctual roots into the truly chaotic world of collective consciousness.”[99]

We will speak more about this danger in the last section of this essay. Before considering why we should be mindful of Jung’s warnings, let’s consider some specific references Jung made about –isms.

In the political realm. Jung lived in the interval when Europe experienced the horrors of two World Wars, the Russian Revolution and the rise of the Soviet Union and the Cold War.[100] He witnessed from the safety of Switzerland the madness of Fascism in Italy and Spain, and Nazism in Germany. In hundreds of citations in his Collected Works, he decried how “the State became all-powerful and claimed its slaves body and soul…”;[101] how Socialism and Communism “… only serve to hollow out the meaning of Parliament, of government, of money, and of the so-called rights of the free citizen….”;[102] how “Every source of energy, industry, commerce, money, even private enterprise is sucked up into the new slave-owner, the State.”[103] and how these systems—Fascism, Socialism, Communism and totalitarianism—suppress free opinion, “encroach upon consciousness,”[104] foster “the herd instinct,”[105] destroy “man’s moral autonomy,”[106] deprive persons of all rights, and rob citizens of their “freedom not only in the social but in the moral and spiritual sphere…”.[107] Jung was not at all pleased with the political and social realities of his day.

In science and research. Jung advocated repeatedly for systems, methodologies, and schools of thought that “… puts the individual human being in the center as the measure of all things.”[108] What did he see, when he examined the trends in science and education? Behaviorism, Positivism, scientism, concretism and (worst of all) materialism. Behaviorism—the branch of psychology pioneered by J.B. Watson in the United States—Jung regarded as reflecting “what the United States stood for in the twentieth century,”[109] that is, “the American, for all his hustling, is mentally the most passive of men…” and he felt that Behaviorism “contributes in its turn to the animalization of the American…”.[110]             Jung felt Positivism was “stale and hollow,”[111] fostering “an attitude of intellectual arrogance accompanied by crudeness of feeling, a violation of life as stupid as its presumptuous.”[112] and likely to cause neuroses in its tendency to cut people “loose from our archetypal foundations,…”.[113]

Jung disliked scientism because it “tried to create an ‘objective’ psychology,”[114] i.e. in its emphasis on objectivity—replicable, fact-based, impersonal evidence—it denied the value of subjectivity—all those things like intuition, feelings, and values that make us unique human beings. Jung gave Freud credit for countering scientism by recognizing “the immense importance of subjective factors in the development of objective mental processes…”.[115]

One component of scientism is concretism, which Jung defined as “the antithesis of abstraction.”.[116] It is a type of thinking that is “… still embedded in the material transmitted by sense-perception. Concretistic thinking operates exclusively with concrete concepts and percepts, and is constantly related to sensation.”[117] Why is this a problem? Because “concretism represents a fusion of thinking and feeling with sensation, so that … thinking and feeling… remain its [sensation’s] servants and can never be developed into pure functions.”[118] That is, this –ism hinders our growth and individuation (one aspect of which is our working on all four of our functions—intuition, sensation, thinking and feeling). Another problem I have seen in my work with dream students. Those who are strong Sensates often think concretely and they have a very hard time abstracting a dream, to spot how it might relate to daily life. They also can struggle in dealing with symbols. Jung, of course, was a master at both abstraction and handling symbols.

Of all the –isms which Jung waxed on and on about which relate to science, and to our culture as a whole (since science is the “knowledge base of our culture),[119] none got Jung’s dander up as much as materialism. Jung defines materialism as “a general view of the world”[120] that came along with the development of natural science. This “view” is characterized by “an excessive overvaluation of physical causation…”[121] with a refusal “to acknowledge any other causal connection than the physical one.”[122] Jung had many criticisms of materialism, e.g. that it “reduces everything to physiology,”[123] and thus “relegated the psyche to the rank of something secondary and derived;”[124] that it made matter “the supreme principle”[125] and treated matter as “a tangible and recognizable reality”[126] when Jung knew it is just a “thoroughly metaphysical concept;”[127] that it replaced the “intangibles of the soul,”[128] leading to “spiritual devastation;”[129] that it regards “life … as a function of matter,”[130] rather than “a process existing in and for itself, to which energy and matter are subordinate…”[131] and in this attitude, it “engenders craziness”[132] “bewilderment and confusion…”,[133] and well as “intellectual death.”[134] In its “deification of matter,”[135] materialism led to the “death of all things psychic,”[136] and gave rise to the doctor who “regards the ethical problems of his patient as lying outside his competence as a doctor.”[137] With matter as our God (deified), it is a short step to what we see today: a health care industry, psychiatry as little more than psychopharmacology (pill dispensing, rather than Jung’s in-depth analytic method), and persons being treated as “income-generating biological structures.”[138]

-Isms related to Freud and his school. Several –isms appear in Jung’s works in reference to Freud. Jung labeled Freud’s approach to psychology “reductive causalism.” By this he meant

“a method of psychological interpretation which regards the unconscious product not as a symbol but semiotically, as a sign or symptom of an underling process…. The reductive method is oriented backwards, in contrast to the constructive method,…”[139]

which was how Jung labeled his own approach. While a constructive method looks to the future, to the purpose and goal of the neurosis, Freud looked back, putting a premium on the anamnesis, the patient’s personal, familial history, and Freud worked with dreams in ways that drained the transformative power inherent in symbols by reducing the symbols to mere signs.[140] Jung noted that “Reduction has a disintegrative effect on the real significance of the unconscious product….” (i.e. the dream symbol).[141] The result of such reductive causalism? Little change in the suffering patient.

Causalism was just one malign –ism in Freud’s system. Dogmaticism and fanaticism were others. As “the attitude par excellence that clings to the idea,”[142] dogmaticism “squeezes experience into a rigid ideological mold,”[143] leading to “a one-sided interpretation of the facts.”[144] In insisting “on identifying the method with his sexual theory,”[145] Freud placed on his brand of psychoanalysis “the stamp of dogmatism.”[146] And this forced Jung to break with Freud:

“His regrettable dogmatism was the main reason why I felt obliged to part company from him. My scientific conscience would not allow me to lend support to an almost fanatical dogma…”[147]

Jung recognized that dogma has no place in science:

“… dogma and science are incommensurable quantities which damage one another by mutual contamination…. One of the elements necessary to science is extreme uncertainty. Whenever science inclines towards dogma and shows a tendency to be impatient and fanatical, it is concealing a doubt which in all probability is justified and explaining away an uncertainty which is only too well founded.”[148]

Which is another problem Jung had with Freud: his fanaticism.

“The Freudians usually fail to mention Adler’s merits, as they make a fanatical creed of their sex-hypothesis. But fanaticism is always a compensation for hidden doubt.”[149]

The last 50 years have seen more people recognize the limitations of Freudianism, with its dogmatism and fanaticism. But Freud was not the only example Jung cited of fanaticism. Jung wrote of the fanatical behavior of Saul toward the Christians,[150] and how secret doubts will lead people to become fanatics about political beliefs, creeds, even in devotion to leaders or party bosses.[151]

Jung also had a problem with Freud’s atheism. Jung labeled atheism “a stupid error,”[152] and he felt it was an “… inevitable consequence of the basic split between spirit and matter in Christian philosophy, which proclaimed the redemption of the spirit from the body and its fetters…”.[153] Why did Jung regard atheism as an error? Because he understood that

“… the destruction of the God-image is followed by the annulment of the human personality. Materialistic atheism with its utopian chimeras forms the religion of all those rationalistic movements which delegate the freedom of personality to the masses and thereby extinguish it.[154]

In other words, atheism imperils our identity as persons and hampers the individuation process. Jung also felt that, by denying the existence of some Higher Power, atheists weaken “…the Summum Bonum, so that it cannot keep out the dark side,…”.[155] We expose ourselves to the powers of the collective unconscious, including the “dark” powers, if we take up atheism.

Intellectualism and individualism. Jung had much to say about these two –isms. Intellectualism puts a premium on rationality and the intellect, but Jung understood that the intellect is a “clever jackanapes,”[156] which can be glib and able to play with words, in stark contrast to the psyche, which Jung described as “hard as granite and heavy as lead” when it “confronts a man as an inner experience…”.[157] In his dealings with his patients, Jung saw over and over how the mind can offer up “rootless intellectualisms which one and all reckon without their host, i.e. without the real man,”[158] and so nothing happens in the analysis until that rational bias is broken.”[159]

Western culture, with its stress on science, objectivity and logic, sees little wrong with intellectualism, but Jung felt “intellectuals know neither themselves nor people as they really are…”.[160] Reading this statement I found myself thinking of economists, with their idea of Rational Economic Man, who always acts in his own self-interest, rationally calculating in all his decision-making. What nonsense![161] Yet there are people who “live in their head” and find it hard, if not impossible, to get into their feelings.

Jung knew that “navigating” too much by the intellect “upsets the process of individuation,”[162] if it doesn’t block it entirely. This is because “a psychology that satisfies the intellect alone”[163] is incomplete, “because the psyche seeks an expression that will embrace its total nature,”[164] and individuating requires that we use all four functions. In my experience, both in my own life and with my students, I have found that feeling and intuition are often more useful functions than thinking and sensing, in terms of handling and interpreting dreams.

The most damning charge Jung made against intellectualism is how it led to the confusion of intellect with spirit:

“… in the course of the nineteenth century, when spirit began to degenerate into intellect, … this lead to the unpardonable mistake of confusing intellect with spirit and blaming the latter for the misdeeds of the former. The intellect does indeed do harm to the soul when it dares to possess itself of the heritage of the spirit. It is in no way fitted to do this, for spirit is something higher than intellect since it embraces the latter and includes the feelings as well….[165]

Jung took some comfort in a trend he saw toward revaluation of feeling and intuition, which seemed to him to be “a sign of cultural advance, a widening of consciousness beyond the narrow confines of a tyrannical intellect.”[166]

Just as mind has become confused with spirit, so Jung noted the confusion of individualism and individuation. “Individualism means deliberately stressing and giving prominence to some supposed peculiarity rather than to collective considerations and obligations.”[167] It “is not and never has been a natural development; it is nothing but an unnatural usurpation, a freakish, impertinent pose that proves its hollowness by crumpling up before the least obstacle.”[168] In more modern jargon, “doing one’s own thing” would be what Jung means: “when an individual way is raised to a norm,”[169] “representing a new form of detachment from the world,”[170] perhaps in reaction “against an equally futile collectivism.”[171] we see individualism in action. Jung’s words here call to mind the “beatniks” of the 1950’s, and the “flower children” of the 1960’s. Jung attached words like “pathological and inimical to life,”[172] “chaotic,”[173] “morbid,”[174] and “neurotic”[175] to individualism.

Very different is individuation. “… individuation means precisely the better and more complete fulfillment of the collective qualities of the human being, …. a process of psychological development that fulfills the individual qualities given; in other words, it is a process by which a man becomes the definite, unique being he in fact is. In so doing he does not become ‘selfish’ in the ordinary sense of the word, but is merely fulfilling the peculiarity of his nature.”[176] This fulfillment recognizes and responds to the inner demands of the soul, while individualism is oriented to the outer world and acts more out of reaction against it.

Jung also saw a difference in the aim of individuation from that of individualism: “The aim of individuation is nothing less than to divest the self of the false wrappings of the persona on the one hand, and of the suggestive power of primordial images on the other…”[177] In other words, when we work on individuating, we let go of poses and masks we unconsciously adopted under peer and family pressures, while we also come to terms with the key archetypes like mother and father that might influence our relationships and reactions in life. As we continue this work, we come to know the Self, and become aware of the “inner city”[178] that lives within us, in the collective unconscious. This awareness then fosters our understanding of how we are all one, the value of community and the importance of strengthening our communal bonds.

Quite different is the aim of individualism: With disregard for society’s standards, perhaps even consciously flaunting these norms, the individual “strikes out on an individual bypath,”[179] with little concern for how this behavior might impact others. Words like “selfish”[180] and “egotism”[181] are associated with this –ism. There is little or no awareness of the human community, or of the collective unconscious “which unites and is common to all mankind.”[182] Where individuation fosters an “at-one-ment with oneself and at the same time with humanity,”[183] individualism fosters alienation, estrangement, fragmentation and “suffocation of the personality.”[184]


Why We Should Be Concerned


-Isms are important. They hold many insights and can provide us with both perspective and guidance as we go through life. They can alert us to theorizing, either by others (who might be trying to pigeonhole us into some pet theory or system) or by ourselves (if we might be interacting with others in impersonal ways). If we hear an –ism, we can remind ourselves about the temptation, so common in our society, to look without, to be focused on external things to the neglect of our inner life. Or an –ism might be an indication of bigotry or fanatical belief on the part of the speaker.

If an –ism shows up in life, we might ask ourselves if there is some dissimulation: are we, or the person using the –ism, trying to hide a real motive? In this way being aware of the danger of –isms can help us become more conscious consumers, less likely to be credulous or to fall prey to the tricksters so common in our society these days.

Watching the daily news, we can observe how demagogues play on the fears of the “herd,” with their talk of terrorism and favoritism, patriotism and nationalism—all of these the “magic words” Jung warned us about. He knew that the people most susceptible to these –isms would be those fearful of change, estranged from their inner lives, and living in the “chaotic world of collective consciousness.”[185] e.g. followers of demagogues like Donald Trump.

Jung’s criticisms of science and research, although written more than a half-century ago, are still valid. Scientism, positivism, objectivism, concretism, and especially materialism continue to be features of our scientific process, research methodologies, our educational system, and mainstream life in general. It is still common to find scientists talk about the “central dogma”[186] of their field, and graduate students being “trained into orthodoxy”[187] with all the “stale and hollow”[188] –isms that “orthodoxy” implies. We still see much resistance to “frontier sciences,”[189] like parapsychology, psi phenomena, field theory and mind/body alternative healing modalities. “Keeping up with the Joneses,” hyperconsumerism, and an economy predicated on constant growth and consumption are reflections of our pathological materialism—pathological because it is destroying the planet even as it destroys our souls.

I wish I could say that the –isms related to Freud and his school are passé, but no: There are still psychiatrists and psychologists being trained in “reductive causalism,”[190] full of dogma and unaware of the many psychological problems that led Freud to develop the concepts he did. There are also many people who declare themselves atheists who have not the slightest awareness of what this implies, in terms of their own personal development. Estrangement from something greater than oneself imperils our chances of attaining fulfillment in life.

Like Jung, I can identify as an intellectual, and everything Jung warned about in his criticism of intellectualism I can attest to: Before my “upending experience”[191] in 1983 that set me on the Jungian path, I lived the glib aridity and foolish head trips that characterize this –ism. I lived in my head, and had to really struggle to reclaim the other functions as I worked on my healing.

Recognizing the distinction between individualism and individuation allows us to spot the neurotic rebel, and see him/her for what s/he is. It amazes me how our culture today has fallen into the cult of celebrity, with so many people admiring these “famous” people, even though so many of them are neurotic, selfish, egotistical, even narcissistic![192] Fifty years after Jung we see individualism run amok!

A final warning Jung offers us as we age. He noticed the tendency as we get older that

“… one’s cherished convictions and principles, especially the moral ones, begin to harden and grow increasingly rigid until, somewhere around the age of fifty, a period of intolerance and fanaticism is reached. It is as if the existence of these principles were endangered and it were therefore necessary to emphasize them all the more.”[193]

Given my age (well over 50) and my consternation at the current drift of our culture, this warning hits home. So often I find myself wondering “Whither our future?” “Is the Dark Age soon upon us?” as I note prevalence of casual “hook ups,” “sexting,” inflammatory political rhetoric breaking long-standing conventions, the diminution of the realm of privacy, and the questionable impact of some modern technologies. Cicero said it best: “O tempora! O mores!”[194] But no fanaticism, please.




Akerlof, George & Robert Shiller (2015), Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Edinger, Edward (1984), The Creation of Consciousness. Toronto: Inner City Press.

Harman, Willis (1996), “A Revisionist of Science,” in Revisioning Science, ed. S.E. Mehrtens. Waterbury VT: Potlatch Press.

Jung, C.G. (1970), “Psychiatric Studies,” Collected Works, 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1973), “Experimental Researches,” Collected Works, 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1960), “The Psychogenesis of Mental Disease,” Collected Works, 3. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1961), “Freud and Psychoanalysis,” Collected Works, 4. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1956) “Symbols of Transformation,” Collected Works, 5, 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1971), “Psychological Types,” Collected Works, 6. Princeton: Princeton University Press

________ (1966), “Two Essays on Analytical Psychology,” CW 7. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1960), ”The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche,” CW 8. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1959), ”The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious,” CW 9i. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1959), “Aion,” Collected Works, 9ii. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1970), “Civilization in Transition,” CW 10. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1969), “Psychology and Religion: West and East,” CW 11. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1953), “Psychology and Alchemy,” CW 12. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1967), “Alchemical Studies,” CW 13. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1963), “Mysterium Coniunctionis,” CW 14. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1966), “The Spirit in Man, Art, and Literature,” CW 15. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1954), “The Practice of Psychotherapy,” CW 16, 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1954), “The Development of Personality,” CW 17. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1976), ”The Symbolic Life,” CW 18. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1983), The Zofingia Lectures. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kahneman, Daniel (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Levitt, Steven & Stephen Dubner (2014), Think Like a Freak. New York: William Morrow.

Pinker, Steven (2011), The Better Angels of Our Nature. New York: Viking.

Rubik, Beverly (1996), Life at the Edge of Science. Philadelphia: Institute for Frontier Science.

Skolimowski, Henryk (1006), “The Methodology of Participation,” in Revisioning Science, ed. S.E. Mehrtens. Waterbury VT: Potlatch Press.

Twenge, Jean & W. Keith Campbell (2009), The Narcissism Epidemic. New York: Atria Paperback.

Zweig, Jason (2007), Your Money & Your Brain. New York: Simon & Schuster.




[1] Collected Works 10 ¶469. Hereafter Collected Works will be abbreviated CW.

[2] CW 9i ¶617.

[3] CW 8 ¶405.

[4] World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary, I, 1044.

[5] CW 6 ¶s232-233. In this and all footnotes through #84 only one citation is given; in most cases, there are many more references throughout the 18 volumes.

[6] CW 4 ¶282.

[7] CW 3 ¶s 428-430.

[8] CW 2 ¶s 847-849.

[9] CW 10 ¶s 928-929.

[10] CW 11 ¶s 524-527.

[11] CW 6 ¶646.

[12] CW 18 ¶s 1507-1510.

[13] CW 17 ¶99.

[14] CW 10 ¶375 note 3.

[15] CW 4 ¶748.

[16] CW 10 ¶204.

[17] CW 11 ¶142.

[18] CW 1 ¶s 37-71.

[19] CW 6 ¶s 814-829.

[20] CW 18 ¶s 822-825.

[21] CW 11 ¶735.

[22] CW 9ii ¶267.

[23] Ibid. ¶234.

[24] CW 11 ¶s 877-907.

[25] CW 7 ¶118.

[26] CW 18 ¶209.

[27] CW 10 ¶s 353-354.

[28] CW 9ii ¶85.

[29] CW 11 ¶s 342-343.

[30] CW 7 ¶231.

[31] CW 10 ¶ 508.

[32] CW 7 ¶ 17.

[33] CW 11 ¶ 33.

[34] CW 10 ¶ 169.

[35] CW 9i ¶ 250.

[36] CW 6 ¶358.

[37] CW 16 ¶146.

[38] CW 6 ¶58.

[39] CW 9ii ¶105.

[40] CW 8 ¶986.

[41] CW 6 ¶s56-58.

[42] CW 4 ¶282.

[43] CW 13 ¶458.

[44] CW 10 ¶578.

[45] CW 6 ¶40.

[46] Ibid. ¶s56-58.

[47] Ibid., ¶49.

[48] Ibid. ¶57.

[49] CW 10 ¶167.

[50] CW 1 ¶s1-150. This is Jung’s doctoral thesis.

[51] CW 5 ¶89.

[52] CW 10 ¶190.

[53] CW 5 ¶148 note 44.

[54] Ibid. ¶446.

[55] CW 6 ¶507.

[56] Ibid. ¶508.

[57] CW 3 ¶527.

[58] CW 6 ¶536.

[59] CW 11 ¶904.

[60] CW 6 ¶507.

[61] Ibid. ¶537.

[62] CW 10 ¶169.

[63] CW 12 ¶18.

[64] CW 8 ¶849.

[65] For Jung’s full description of types, see CW 6 ¶s556-670.

[66] Ibid. ¶963.

[67] CW 11 ¶140.

[68] CW 3 ¶420.

[69] CW 12 ¶557.

[70] CW 10 ¶653.

[71] CW 6 ¶29.

[72] CW 4 ¶746.

[73] CW 11 ¶442.

[74] CW 3 ¶456.

[75] CW 10 ¶396.

[76] CW 6 ¶168.

[77] CW 6 ¶766.

[78] CW 9i ¶125.

[79] CW 17 ¶s127-128.

[80] CW 10 ¶517.

[81] CW 6 ¶621.

[82] CW 3 ¶406.

[83] CW 10 ¶1019.

[84] CW 9i ¶453.

[85] Page 7.

[86] Ibid.

[87] Ibid.

[88] CW 10 ¶893; cf. Edinger (1984), 22.

[89] CW 12 ¶557.

[90] CW 10 ¶44.

[91] CW 9i ¶617.

[92] CW 11 ¶144.

[93] CW 8 ¶427.

[94] Ibid. ¶366.

[95] CW 11 ¶772.

[96] Pinker (2011); this is the title of his book; he is quoting Abraham Lincoln.

[97] CW 10 ¶103.

[98] CW 16 ¶3.

[99] CW 8 ¶405.

[100] Jung lived from 1875 to 1961.

[101] CW 18 ¶1324.

[102] Ibid. ¶1335.

[103] Ibid. ¶1324.

[104] CW 10 ¶451.

[105] CW 16 ¶222.

[106] CW 9i ¶453.

[107] CW 10 ¶559.

[108] Ibid. ¶523.

[109] Ibid. ¶929.

[110] Ibid.

[111] CW 6 ¶621.

[112] Ibid.

[113] CW 9i ¶267.

[114] CW 3 ¶406.

[115] Ibid.

[116] CW 6 ¶696.

[117] Ibid.

[118] Ibid. ¶698.

[119] Harman (1996), v.

[120] CW 3 ¶467.

[121] Ibid.

[122] Ibid.

[123] CW 6 ¶594.

[124] Ibid. ¶961.

[125] CW 11 ¶765.

[126] Ibid. ¶762.

[127] Ibid.

[128] CW 18 ¶1115.

[129] Ibid. ¶1345.

[130] CW 8 ¶529.

[131] Ibid.

[132] Ibid.

[133] CW 9ii ¶170.

[134] Jung (1983), 19. Jung stated this judgment in 1896, while still a medical student. In these same Zofingia lectures, he referred to materialism as a “loathsome, stinking plant” that was “being grown in all the scientific institutions in the land…” (36)

[135] Ibid. ¶406.

[136] CW 15 ¶12.

[137] CW 11 ¶547.

[138] I read this phrase years ago and associate it with some economist who specializes in the economics of health care, but I am unable to identify the exact source now. If any reader should know it, I would much appreciate having the citation.

[139] CW ¶788.

[140] Ibid.

[141] Ibid.

[142] Ibid. ¶537.

[143] Ibid.

[144] CW 17 ¶128.

[145] CW 4 ¶746.

[146] Ibid.

[147] CW 17 ¶128.

[148] CW 4 ¶746.

[149] CW 17 ¶156.

[150] CW 8 ¶582.

[151] CW 10 ¶511.

[152] CW 11 ¶140.

[153] CW 18 ¶1658.

[154] CW 9ii ¶170.

[155] CW 18 ¶1660.

[156] CW 17 ¶303.

[157] Ibid.

[158] CW 10 ¶701.

[159] CW 8 ¶843. This is Jung’s scarab beetle story; the patient was thoroughly rationalistic and the analysis was going nowhere until she had a dream of a scarab beetle and just as she was telling the dream to Jung, a scarab beetle came to the window, Jung opened it and handed her the insect. The shock was sufficient to break her rationalism and the analysis could then proceed.

[160] CW 18 ¶784.

[161] The new sub-discipline of behavioral economics recognizes this; cf. Kahneman (2011), Levitt & Dubner (2014), Zweig (2007), and Akerlof & Shiller (2015).

[162] CW 12 ¶150.

[163] CW 7 ¶201.

[164] Ibid.

[165] CW 13 ¶7.

[166] Ibid.

[167] CW 7 ¶267.

[168] CW 17 ¶292.

[169] CW 6 ¶761.

[170] Ibid. ¶433.

[171] CW 16 ¶227.

[172] CW 6 ¶761.

[173] CW 11 ¶494.

[174] CW 16 ¶227.

[175] CW 12 ¶557.

[176] CW 7 ¶267.

[177] Ibid. ¶269.

[178] This term is Daryl Sharp’s; his Jung-oriented publishing house has this name.

[179] CW 6 ¶761.

[180] CW 7 ¶267.

[181] Ibid.

[182] CW 16 ¶227.

[183] Ibid.

[184] CW 12 ¶559.

[185] CW 18 ¶405.

[186] This is how the discipline of genetics refers to the structure of DNA; on dogma in science, see Rubik (1996), 12.

[187] Skolimowski (1996), 162.

[188] CW 6 ¶621.

[189] Rubik (1996), 7.

[190] CW 6 ¶880.

[191] Harman (1984), xiii.

[192] E.g. Kim Kardashian and Donald Trump; Twenge & Campbell (2009) discusses this in depth.

[193] CW 8 ¶773.

[194] The Latin is a lament, meaning “Oh the times! Oh the [fallen] standards!”; in Catilinam, I, 1.