What is the nature of evil, and how does it relate
to the shadow? Jung wrote extensively
on this subject, invoking the criticism of theologians and psychologists
alike. However, rather than retreating
from the subject, this collective response only invigorated Jung and led to
deeper and deeper inquiry. The
positions and conclusions he reached are not simple or even completely
consistent. But they did serve the
purpose he intended: to force us to
look at the most disturbing aspects of our individual and collective lives,
engage with them, and take ownership where appropriate.
Part of the problem with Jung’s approach is his
failure to define the basic terms. What
does he mean by good and evil? At
times, he equates good with light and evil with darkness, and states that the
Self contains both and is a balance of both.
So, this would imply that evil originates in the Self and comes from the
place of darkness, the shadow. But, at other
times, Jung extols the virtues of darkness and deprecates those superficial
people who aspire only to the light.
Similarly, Jung writes about the contradictory nature of God,
emphasizing how God’s evil side brings suffering to poor Job and to us all. And yet, this is the same Jung who, in the
final chapter of his autobiography, speaks of the essence of God as an
indescribable love.
Jung wrote most extensively on the subject of evil
in his book, Answer to Job. Jung’s purpose was to attack the superficial,
one-sided concept of God found in mainstream theology and replace the concept
with one that rings more true with psychological experience. The God in the Book of Job is an
overpowering tyrant, mostly blind to the suffering of wretched Job. He’s too unconscious to be moral. As Jung might say, the ego can be moral and
conscious, but the Self is an amoral, blind force. God succumbs to his own evil side, personified by Satan, and
inflicts suffering on Job unjustly. To
this day, this evil side of God has not been integrated into the canonical
Christian God-image. God is sorely in
need of healing from this split, and that requires him to become incarnated
into human beings, pinned in space and time, where the opposites may unite
through human consciousness. The
incarnation of God began with Christ, but has yet to be completed because only
the light side has been accepted.
That’s our job now.
Evil comes into human life in this context. The origin of human evil is in God
himself. He fills us with evil as much
as he fills us with good, and that is why he should be feared. We are prone to identify with the evil side
of the Self, and then we are capable of perpetuating horrific acts. Who are the most prone to this possession by
evil? Those who have been wounded as
children and therefore have a troubled relationship with the unconscious,
particularly the shadow.
There’s plenty of evidence to support Jung’s
proposition that evil is an essential and ineradicable part of the human
psyche. Our history is filled with
holocausts, death camps, callousness, and evil beyond description, often
perpetuated by people who had no personal grudge against the victim, but who
calmly and methodically perpetuated their acts as if at the bidding of an evil
master.
NeoJungian analyst John Sanford presents an
interesting deconstruction of Jung’s ideas on evil in his book Jung and the Problem of Evil. He points out some inconsistencies in Jung’s
thinking on the subject. For instance,
Jung places ultimate faith in the power of dreams to heal and to guide the
process of individuation. Dreams
originate in the Self, the archetype of wholeness. However, if in fact the Self is equal parts good and evil, might
not dreams sometimes deceive and destroy – perhaps even half of the time? Sanford offers an alternative explanation of
evil, which he illustrates to be consistent with the core of Jung’s thinking,
while still addressing some of its incompleteness and contradictoriness.
Sanford begins by exploring the meaning of “goodness.” He dismisses the simple descriptions of
goodness, such as absence of darkness or paradox or blemish. Instead, he proposes that goodness means
wholeness. As he puts it, “if something
is whole it is sound and is as it ought to be, and that is what makes it
good. Evil, then, would be the power
that seeks to destroy wholeness.”
Sanford goes on to say that the essence of the Self is creativity. Again, in the words of Sanford, “That which is creative seeks to
bring about ever new and more creative forms of life and consciousness. Evil, then, would be whatever opposes the
creative goals and energies of the Self.
To say that the Self is creative also means that the truth emanates from
it, since one cannot build anything creative on a foundation of falsehood. Psychologically this means that if we are to
develop in accordance with the Self we must see the truth about ourselves. . . .
As far as the Self is concerned, the first manifestation of the Self we
are likely to experience is its dark side, as it destroys that within us that
is not fit to exist.” According to
Sanford, what goes wrong is egocentrism.
The egocentric ego avoids the truth and insists upon seeing the world in
its own way, leading to one-sidedness and propensity to possession. For Sanford, evil does have an archetypal
base, but not as part of the archetype of the Self, but as part of the
archetype of choice. Here is another
quote from Sanford:
Choice is fundamental to the individuation process, or, to
put it theologically, to the knowledge of God.
Psychological
and spiritual development involves the making of choices, as does life itself.
Whether they are made consciously or unconsciously makes no difference as far
as their psychological and spiritual consequences are concerned. Our
capacity—and necessity—for choice making is perhaps the most important quality
distinguishing us from other forms of animal life.
Life,
and the Self, hold us responsible for our choices no matter how we arrive at them.
The fact that we may be unconscious of the
choices we are making does not shelter us from their consequences. There is a
certain impartial ruthlessness in the spiritual life just as there is in
nature. If you hike into the wilderness without taking proper precautions and
are caught in an unexpected snowstorm you may very well freeze to death. In our
spiritual and psychological lives the consequences of our choices are equally
impartial and ruthless. Even though two Jungian analysts wrote a book called Man the
Choice-Maker,' Jungian psychologists generally,
along with other psychologists, pay little attention to the matter of choice.
This is understandable when it comes to psychologists such as the
behaviorists, for they don't believe there is such a thing as choice: human
behavior is just a matter of conditioning. But Jungian psychology believes in
the archetypes, and there surely must be an archetype for something as
fundamental to human existence as choice.
Evil, and its personification in the figure of Satan,
is part of this archetype, for if evil did not exist neither would choice. The
archetype of choice requires that there are alternatives from which to choose.
A decision to say yes to something must carry with it the possibility of saying
no. A choice toward the good must also have a choice toward the bad. When a
moral or spiritual choice is to be made there must be alternatives: One either
chooses for or against the purposes of the Self or God. If there were not such choice in the world,
spiritual development and psychological consciousness could not take place, and
individuation would be impossible.
However,
this does not place evil at the heart of the Self. Like all archetypes, the
archetype of choice, which includes evil, is subordinate to the Self. To put it
theologically, we could say that evil is allowed by God's plan but does not
express God's intent.
Let’s take a moment to take in Sanford’s
proposition and consider its implications.
The path of individuation requires us to continually make choices, from
the simple to the fundamental. In so
doing, we confront the archetype of choice.
One choice leads to increasing wholeness and creativity – the other
choice leads to limitation. That second
choice is seductive. It is the
adversary, the essence of evil. The
ego, vested with free will, must choose wisely and courageously, or it will
perpetuate the ultimate betrayal and commit the only true sin – failing to
become more fully what it was meant to be.
This can be very confusing for the ego.
The choice that is most difficult is often the choice in favor of
individuation, whereas the easy answer often originates with the
adversary. A seeming disaster, which
completely upsets the best-laid plans of the ego, inviting in the shadowy
unlived life, may seem like an evil intrusion to the egocentric ego – when, in
fact, it is the face of creativity, wiping the slate clean to make way for what
must come next.