Quantum Drummer

On previous chapters, I presented the view of the left-right hemispheres of the brain according to the studies of Iain McGilchrist. According to McGilchrist’s proposal, the Wester Cultures in the world have been dominated by the left hemisphere, and its tendencies have defined the way that cultures evolved and behaved in the past few hundred years. The Western Culture has been characterized by a dramatic growth in the technological, scientific and financial fields, with basis on the left hemisphere traits of individuality, competition, and materialistic focus. The basic element behind these characteristics of individuality and competition is the pursuit of power, which is also found as one of the main traits behind the mental model of the “survival of the fittest.” We have observed how competition and individuality have been also strengthening individual ego behaviors, the cult of individuality, and generated many areas of polarization, including widening the economic gaps in society, social conflicts, and even regional wars in pursuit of economic or geo-political domination. The central element behind the domination tendencies and division in the world is the pursuit of power. At the individual, community or country levels, the pursuit of technological, economic and military power is at the center of most of the conflicts in the world. Going back to the dichotomy of us ~ the other, the need for power raises from the need to make “us” better, stronger, richer and therefore “more powerful” than “the other,” and this mental model results on individuals dominating other individuals, communities and religions trying to dominate other communities and religions, and eventually countries dominating other countries.

To analyze the importance of the search for power in the increase of polarization, I will go back to the Psyche studies performed by Jung.

Jung’s Will to Power

On Jung’s book: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology (1953), he discusses the Eros Theory, as part of his studies on the conflicts that develop at the individual and community levels, generated by humanity’s conflict of opposites between “culture and nature” or as he defines: the conflict between the “civilized in man” and “the animal in man.” For Jung, this is a matter of the development of civilization, and he indicates:

“The growth of culture consists, as we know, in a progressive subjugation of the animal in man. It is a proves of domestication which cannot be accomplished without rebellion on the part of the animal nature that thirsts for freedom.” (Jung, 1953, Paragraph 17).

Jung here acknowledges that civilization means the subjugation of the “animal” or “natural” tendencies of the individual, and when this happens, the individual will rebel because he/she will be losing freedom, in order to fit the rules and regulations of a civilized society.

Trying to explain the conflict between “civilized man and ancient man” and the way the human psyche deals with this dichotomy, Jung introduces the element of “The Will to Power”, and he starts by providing the following intense description, in the framework of Analytical Psychology:

“So far we have considered the problem of this new psychology essentially from the Freudian point of view. Undoubtedly it has shown us a very real truth to which our pride, our civilized consciousness, may say no, though something else in us says yes. Many people find this fact extremely irritating; it arouses their hostility or even their fear, and consequently they are unwilling to recognize the conflict. And indeed it is a frightening thought that man also has a shadow-side to him, consisting not just of little weaknesses and foibles, but of a positively demonic dynamism. The individual seldom knows anything of this; to him, as an individual, it is incredible that he should ever in any circumstances go beyond himself. But let these harmless creatures form a mass, and there emerges a raging monster; and each individual is only one tiny cell in the monster’s body; so that for better or worse he must accompany it on its bloody rampages and even assist it to the utmost” (Paragraph 35).

This is an enlightening description of two sides of the human psyche, one conscious, described by Jung as a “civilized consciousness” but another side that is unconscious, but can take over the control of the individual when becoming a part of a “mass,” and a monster is created. This phenomena is clearly found in 20^th Century history, when the psyche of groups of people are under the control of charismatic individuals, and fall under a “mass consciousness” that consistently behaves irrationally. In some cases, it is as if the groups of people become hypnotized by the charismatic individuals, but indeed, since the influence of the leaders is polarizing the people’s unconscious, the result is very much similar to being hypnotized.

The Will to Power analyzed by Jung is the concept introduced by Nietzsche, being the instinct of self-preservation. This instinct, while being unconscious, and therefore invisible to the individual, was assumed by Jung as being part of the Shadow, and explained as follows:

“The psychological observer knows this state as “identification with the shadow,” a phenomenon which occurs with great regularity at such moments of collision with the unconscious. The only thing that helps here is cautious self-criticism. Firstly and before all else, it is exceedingly unlikely that one has just discovered a world-shattered truth, for such things happen extremely seldom in the world’s history.” (Jung, 1953, Paragraph 41).

However, if we follow Jung’s conclusion that the “Will to Power” is part of the Shadow, this means, by definition, that this would not necessarily be present in all individuals. And the question arises: is self-preservation not present in everybody’s psyche? It appears that self-preservation is an instinct that is present in all humans, even if at different levels of intensity, but if this is the case, then all humans are capable of developing the “Will to Power” instinct, and being an unconscious element, it could most probably be part of the Collective Unconscious or an Archetypal figure. Now, as a potential solution to falling into the unconscious control of the Will to Power, Jung offers the idea that “the only thing that helps here is cautious self-criticism,” but here again we fall into an issue, since the issue becomes about: how are we able to be self-critical of something that is unconscious to us and therefore invisible? Probably the only possible solution is to be able to work in achieving Individuation, which requires the integration of the Shadow and balance the conscious and unconscious elements of the psyche. Once Individuated then perhaps it might be possible to apply self-criticism in a way that can balance the Will to Power.

Now, previously we have identified how fear can develop a protective action that generates polarization and conflict. Here we find that the instinct of self-preservation, which can also be defined as fear of dying, or fear of becoming insignificant, generates also conflict and polarization against those people or situations that risk our “survival.”

Jung continues to reflect on the dichotomy found between the unconscious element, or instinct, and the conscious element, or ego. He makes a clear differentiation from Freud’s psychology, which calls for the existence of an “ego-instinct”, which Freud compares to the “urge to power”. On the same book, Two Essays on Analytical Psychology (1953), Jung mentions:

“In reality human nature bears the burden of a terrible and unending conflict between the principle of the ego and the principle of the instinct: the ego all barriers and restraint, instinct limitless, and both principles of equal might. In a certain sense man may count himself happy that he is ‘conscious only of a single urge,’ and therefore it is only prudent to guard against ever knowing the other. But if he does learn to know the other, it is all up with him: he then enters upon the Faustian conflict.” (Paragraph 43).

The consistency in Jung’s observations can be seen in how he contrasts the ego based rigidity and the freedom of the instinct, however, in regards to the ego based influence on power, there is a clear correlation, since the ego by itself, as much as it is conscious, and especially on an individual with left hemisphere tendencies of independence and competition, definitely wants to build up power and dominate other individuals. On the other hand, the instinct part, being unconscious, might have a higher potential of influence in power, since it is the unconscious part, especially when the individual becomes just an element of a group consciousness that finds itself polarized against a threat of survival and unconsciously becomes radicalized against “the other” under an unconscious mindset of having to grow power as a defense to the  existential threat coming from “the other”.

The behavior of the psyche observed here, in the way the polarization occurs between the conscious ego and the unconscious instinct, is just one of the several interactions. The human psyche is much more complex than just this dichotomy, and behavior is influenced by other factors, such as the individual’s Anima and Animus, the Complexes that the individual developed from early life, and the archetypal influences present in the cultural heritage of the individual, such as Eros and Logos. All this is a complex system of interactions which require much more work, over and above just the integration of the Shadow. In the next chapters I will expand on the system analysis of all these complex interactions applying the Complementarity philosophy.