Psychological Fragments: Emotional Systems

Emotions are energetically charged psychic content. The magnitude and direction of this charge can be mediated or controlled by conscious cognitive processes, such as thinking, and less conscious aspects, such as attitudes.

Emotional charges have affinities for like-charged units and tend to form clusters that increase their gravity (psychic significance) and complexity. Moreover, these aspects can also extenuate similar features present in the particular situation, thus contributing to an increase in the energetic charge of the overall situation.

Emotions can also become encompassed in larger internal structures. An illustration of this might be something akin to adding a patch to a quilt that represents internalized emotions and activating affective structures. Through this process of extending into broader internal structures, subsequent effects or secondary effects may or may not be functionally autonomous from the initial point of activation. Thus, this secondary effect has the potential to become independent of the initial cause as the cascade of the activational pattern is set into motion.

Chained activation patterns are unconscious, at least in their totality, and only manifest or exert a force when tripped or activated.

Tracing activation patterns can provide information about core infrastructure of one’s inner world and information about one’s way of processing information. How an individual makes sense of and processes this environmental information sheds light on their cognitive style, comprised of attitudinal patterns and preferences for information processing.

A technique for investigating these affective activation patterns is an intervention similar to behavioral chaining, which involves the examination of antecedents and consequences. However, there is more of a need to focus on idiosyncratic associations to gather something of a nodal network of affective (emotional) infrastructure within the individual’s psyche, which, subsequently, allows for an analysis of themes, directions, and inferences about the aim and function of the individual’s emotional repertoire.

Tension of the Times

One of the hallmarks of Carl Jung’s work is his conceptualization of the shadow. Roughly speaking, the shadow consists of instincts, aspects, qualities, and the like that are unrecognized or repressed in oneself. Jung did not believe that the shadow was only comprised of bad things but also included good parts and positive potentialities (Sharp, 1991).

However, Jung believed that ignoring the shadow had dangerous consequences since he believed this simply contributed to the person continuing to operate through life in an unconscious manner, driven by forces unknown to the individual. Therefore, Jung earnestly believed that the task (or process) of assimilating one’s shadow is an essential one that each individual has a responsibility to undertake for the development of one’s personality.

Another central feature of Jung’s work is not solely focusing on the individual but instead demonstrating the interconnectedness between the inner and outer worlds, the individual and the collective. This lens allows us to observe the ways our interactions with the outside world affect the state of our inner world. This can be reversed to observe the way our inner world is affected by the happenings of the outer world. It is the latter of these two vantage points that offer an entry into what is called Shadow Work, which is the conscious process of becoming aware of parts of oneself that had previously been hidden or repressed and working to find a way of coming to terms with these parts that are viewed by the conscious mind as being in someway unacceptable.

Below is a quote from Joseph R. Lee, who is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) and Certified Jungian Analyst, sharing his thoughts on a recent episode (#217) of the podcast This Jungian Life:

We are in a stunning time in the western world. Where powerful cultural mechanisms have been set in motion which support us in disavowing enormous aspects of our own nature and allowing us to weaponize our own denial, so that we will find targets of people, institutions, religions, any numbers of things, where we will lay parts of our own unacceptable nature and then participate with great fervor in the destruction of the thing we’ve landed our shadow on and the motivation to annihilate the thing that I have pushed my shadow into has reached a shocking, shocking level in our culture.

Jung offers us an antidote for that, but it cannot be forced on anyone; the only way out of the place we are in our culture is to see that the enemy is us, and if we have any hope for transforming this muddy painful mess that we’ve all created in our culture it’s in the redemption, and the purifying fire that is set in motion when we reclaim our accusations and transform them into statements that declare what I do not want to know about myself (Lee, Marchiano, & Stewart, 2022, 44:46-46:47).

This excerpt addresses the rampant and intensifying reliance on and usage of projection to sidestep our dire need for inner work, both as individuals and as a collective society. It is through our perpetual avoidance, assisted by the mechanisms of denial, projection, and the like, that the societal we have been able to maintain this unyielding holding pattern between the polarizing forces vying for societal control.

Nevertheless, the underlying tension between these opposing forces has not been stagnant; rather, it is growing in intensity with the amassing of each piece of reality suppressed, denied, distorted, or in any other way blocked from the path of integration. The path that is not sought after—at least collectively—is nonetheless the path necessary for wielding the enormity of the tension between the opposites present in our time. Nevertheless, the responsibility lies on each of us to learn to navigate this path, if not for the purpose of growth as an individual, then, at least, as a citizen indebted to some degree or another to each other.

References

Lee, J. A, Marchiano, L., & Stewart, D. (Hosts). (2022, June 10). Death: A Jungian perspective [Audio podcast episode]. This Jungian Life. https://thisjungianlife.com/episode-217-death

Sharp, D. (1991). C. G. Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms and Concepts (Studies in Jungian Psychology by Jungian Analysts) (First Edition). Inner City Books.

Holding Pattern of the Tension of Opposites [Digital Image]. Self-created (2022). https://nightcafe.studio/

A Societal Denial

So many issues and challenges surround our daily lives. Our level of concern for ourselves and society at large has continued as a perpetual buzz that lies slightly below our conscious awareness.

To become desensitized to the chaotic nature of these times is one response to the presence of fear. There are other ways to respond to fear, such as fight, flight, freeze, or fawn (e.g., people-pleasing). There is plenty of accessible information about these types of stress responses, and I do not mean to belittle the importance of this information; instead, I am shifting my attention away from the more abstract realm of psychoeducation and to that of societal analysis of the variety of ways these fear responses are presenting.

As calamities have accumulated, social norms have broken down or altered to such a degree that they are no longer recognizable to their previous versions. This change is just one indicator that our physical bodies, on the individual level, and our societal body, on the collective and symbolic level, are being reduced further and further down to the level of base needs and primitive reactions. The most central fear (reaction) to security concerns (need for safety).

Similar to the individual needing the safety provided by having shelter, the citizen (i.e., the “mass man” as Carl Jung describes it) views the government as being the protector who provides some level of security; in fact, this is the most basic agreement of the social contract that connects government with the people it governs.

But what happens when components of one’s shelter break or deteriorate? When the A/C breaks in one’s house, stress levels rise as the discomfort sets in and frustrations build, as patience must be exercised while waiting on someone to fix it. What if a break in the mainline and the house’s water supply is disrupted? Would this result in the same kind of stress as that of the A/C breaking?

The responses are likely similar, but a house’s water supply disruption would evoke far more fear than the A/C disruption (in most cases). Moreover, in both cases, the hope of someone coming to fix and repair these issues allows for this stress, fear, and associated negative emotions to abate.

While most people might opt for some skilled professional to come and repair these types of issues with their shelter, the someone who fixes the problem and eliminates the associated fear needn’t come from the outside. That is, it could be the house’s inhabitants who fix their A/C or broken water system by taking matters into their own hands. Of course, this could also worsen the issue due to the lack of professional knowledge and understanding.

Say this situation happened to you: the water system to your house is malfunctioning so that the supply is disrupted, and you decide to take matters into your own hands to fix the issue, only to compound the issue, making it far worse than the initial issue.

What do you do? Would you be developed enough to recognize the error in your decision and reach out to ask a professional for help, or would you double down on trusting your own abilities to fix both the initial problem and the problem that emerged from your attempted remedy?

To extend this line of questioning further, which of these responses would most likely lead to a reduction in general distress, both for the person who is attempting these repairs and those witnesses to it?

It seems relatively clear-cut within the context of home repairs, but what if the context is transposed to the societal plane involving the relationship between citizens and their government? Sure the citizens may be able to identify breaks and/or deteriorations in their societal shelter, but does that translate into having the necessary understanding to attempt to remedy the situation by taking matters into their own hands?

As the saying goes, “be careful what you wish for because you just might get it,” and what then? What happens when you are the person attempting to fix a problem but refusing to acknowledge your incompetence and need for cooperation because your fear of being embarrassed is blinding you? What happens when you decide that the citizens are the only ones who can successfully remedy the complex societal problems yet only make matters worse with each successive attempt to remedy these ails? The dripping leak within the system turns into a raging torrent of your own making.

But is it actually your fault if you were only trying to help? If there is already water dripping from a crack in the system, how is it your fault if it worsens when you try to fix it? And away we go – swooshed up and transcended from these terrible and frightful discussions of matters of reality and into the realm of argumentation, semantics, and logical fallacies to pacify as illusions for the weakened (or undeveloped) ego to, once more, evade looking into its shadow avoid taking responsibility. Both to ignore the damage it has done through over-estimating itself (ego inflation) and for denying the seriousness with which the reality of the situation demanded.

It is not an excuse to say, “I didn’t know that would happen,” when trying to perform home repairs on issues you are not qualified to do. Neither is it an excuse to perform fallacious lines of questioning in such a way as to distract from the real issue at hand and then pretend as if the distraction is a solution. Nor is it one to become entrapped in perpetual argumentation about the right solution does not resolve any given problem in itself.

Whether it is performing home repairs or seeking to address societal issues, operating from an inflated sense of self-confidence, blind sense of duty, and uncompromising stubbornness in admitting one’s mistakes not only does nothing to work toward a solution, but it also actively resists the necessary cooperation required for any meaningful and sustainable solution to be achieved.

Image: “Arrogance, Fear, and Pride.” Self-created image using AI Generator: https://nightcafe.studio/