Unravelling the Gender Identity Discourse: A Jungian Perspective

In the divided landscape of gender identity, debates and discussions have become increasingly contentious, often mired in polarising views and societal misconceptions. As we navigate this labyrinth of identity and expression, we might find an unexpected guide in the form of Carl Gustav Jung’s psychological theories. Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist and founder of analytical psychology. Jung developed numerous concepts that offer significant insights into our understanding of sex, sexuality, and gender identity. At the heart of these is the recognition of the dynamic interplay between conscious and unconscious elements of the psyche, which includes a recognition of the fluid interplay of masculine and feminine energies in all individuals, regardless of our biological sex.

Carl Jung was an empiricist who studied the human psyche based on phenomenological observations. Jung used empirical techniques to collect data about the psyche in the same way that a material scientist does, which meant he was able to make significant discoveries about the human psyche and the way we sustain equilibrium and find a path towards wholeness and individuation. Empiricism is a practice of philosophy that emphasises the importance of experience in how we come to understand the world. Jung was heavily influenced by the philosophical model of Immanuel Kant, which proposed that one ought to be able to ‘know yourself’. As Valentin Balanovskiy notes, “it is undoubtedly that Kant’s ideas influenced [Jung] strongly and primarily were used to build the epistemological basis of analytical psychology. As Jung wrote

“The point of view I have adopted is that of modern empirical psychology and the scientific method… Psychology cannot establish any metaphysical “truths,” nor does it try to. It is concerned solely with the phenomenology of the psyche…. For modern psychology, ideas are entities, like animals and plants. The scientific method consists in the description of nature.”

An empiricist, according to Jung, can only speak of “data that can be determined with sufficient certainty,” from which we can then try to “crystallise out characteristics of the as yet unknown” (Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Page 445-449). While Jung worked with the mind, he believed that the manifestations of the mind through the individual and the collective consciousness, are real and something we should value in themselves, both as symbols that we use to communicate, and as expressions of our manifested reality.

Jung applied empiricism in his work through a series of concepts that were at the time, only guardedly and cautiously considered, but which have subsequently been incorporated into standard social and cultural concerns related to psychological difference. Perhaps the most famous being the difference between introversion and extroversion.

Principally, Jung recognised that dreams arose from more than just mystical causes, and he used dreams as a source of empirical evidence. The Jungian method places great emphasis on dreams, as a symbolic manifestation of the unconscious. Jung recognised that our dreams are telling us something, but that we may need help in interpreting our dreams. Jung overturned the idea that dreams are simply nonsensical or the discharge of residual energy in a mechanism. This is because Jung valued the importance of mythology and symbolism as defining expressions of the collective unconscious, and as forms of expression that revealed truths about human existence that is difficult to put into words or expressed in a calculated manner. Jung believed that mythology and symbolism were the natural languages of the unconscious, and he used them as a source of empirical evidence that indicate what forces are at play in the unconscious.

Jung founded his psychological approach, assuming that there are archetypal patterns within the human psyche that are deeply rooted in the collective unconscious, which go all the way back to primitive times in human and pre-human development. These archetypes, Jung believed, are expressed as constantly recurring symbols in stories, art and mythology, and at the acute end, in the fantasies of psychotic people. The function of therapy, therefore, is to work through the fantasies of psychotics to understand the innate collective cultural residue, which Jung called archetypes, that are present but perhaps not understood or functioning satisfactorily.

Jung was a voracious scholar who was able to draw on his extensive knowledge of mythology, religion, and philosophy to support his theories. Jung did not dismiss these cultural expressions, or ascribe their significance to single or one-sided manifestations of libidinal energy. Instead, Jung applied empiricism to his work by using a variety of sources, including dreams, mythology, symbolism, and archetypes, and by drawing on his work as a practising Doctor and healer. While Jung’s methods may have been unconventional for the time, they were grounded in empiricism and a commitment to scientific inquiry.

It’s worth noting how Carl Jung’s ideas differed from those of Sigmund Freud. It is often asserted that Jung was a student of Freud, and while they worked closely, Jung had already formed many of his opinions about the development of the psyche before meeting Freud. Some key differences between the two include:

  • Jung believed that religion was a natural expression of the collective unconscious, while Freud believed it was a collective neurosis.
  • While both Freud and Jung believed in the existence of the unconscious mind, they had different views on its nature. Freud believed that the unconscious was primarily a repository for repressed desires and memories, while Jung believed that it also contained a collective unconscious that was shared by all humans and contained archetypes and other universal symbols.
  • Jung proposed the concepts of the extraverted and the introverted personality, while Freud did not.
  • Freud believed that transference required an asymmetric relationship between the patient and the therapist, while Jung believed that it could occur in any relationship.
  • Jung saw parapsychology and psychic phenomena as important, while Freud was against studying such ideas and linking them to psychoanalysis.

Overall, while Freud and Jung initially developed their theories together and had some similarities, their differences became clearer over time and resulted in two distinct schools of thought in psychoanalysis. Perhaps the most significant difference was the concept of the libido, which Freud asserted was the principle energising force grounded in the sex drive, while Jung considered the libido to be a general psychic energy that could be manifested in many aspects of our lives, such as the love of a mother for their child, which is not sex-driven.

In the light of current discussions on gender identity, then, the Jungian archetypes of the ‘Anima’ and ‘Animus’ perhaps prove particularly illuminating. The Anima represents the inner feminine side of a man, and the Animus represents the inner masculine side of a woman. Jung contends that both archetypes are a part of the ‘collective unconscious’, a term coined by Jung to denote universally shared archetypes and experiences. The presence of these archetypes within everyone, underpins the fluidity and complexity inherent in gender identity.

It is worth listing Jung’s key concepts, as to ensure that we are psychically well regulated, all and each of these factors must be working in harmony, with no one-sided unbalancing:

  • Persona: This is the mask or image we present to the world, designed to make a particular impression on others and conceal our true nature.
  • Self: In Jungian psychology, the Self is the unification of consciousness and unconsciousness in a person, and is realized as the product of individuation. It represents the harmony and balance between various opposing qualities.
  • Symbol: Symbols, according to Jung, are representations of the unconscious mind’s content. They can provide a means of understanding and interpreting complex psychological concepts.
  • Ego: The Ego represents the conscious mind as it comprises the thoughts, memories, and emotions a person is aware of. The Ego is responsible for feelings of identity and continuity.
  • Shadow: The Shadow is an unconscious aspect of the personality which the conscious ego does not identify with. It consists of repressed ideas, weaknesses, desires, instincts, and shortcomings.
  • Synchronicity: This concept refers to meaningful coincidences that cannot be explained by conventional notions of causality. It suggests an underlying pattern or framework that transcends the physical world.
  • Anima: The Anima is a feminine archetype in the male unconscious, representing all feminine psychological tendencies within a man, such as emotion and intuition.
  • Animus: The Animus is the male archetype present in the female unconscious, representing all masculine psychological tendencies within a woman, such as rationality and the capacity for action.
  • Archetype: Archetypes are universal, archaic symbols and images that derive from the collective unconscious. They are patterns or prototypes that are inherent in the human psyche across cultures and societies.
  • Individuation: This is the process by which a person becomes an “individual” or a psychologically “in-divisible” unity or “whole”. It involves integrating the conscious with the unconscious, while still maintaining their relative autonomy.
  • Complex: A Complex is a core pattern of emotions, memories, perceptions, and wishes in the personal unconscious organized around a common theme.
  • Projection: This is a psychological defence mechanism where a person subconsciously denies their attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world or to other people.
  • Collective Unconscious: This refers to structures of the unconscious mind shared among beings of the same species. It is a term coined by Jung, and it represents universal archetypes and primal mental images.
  • Introvert and Extrovert: These are the two primary modalities of dealing with the world, with introversion being more inward-facing and concerned with the internal world, and extroversion being more outward-facing and concerned with the external world.
  • Psychological Types: This refers to Jung’s theory of personality types, represented by a combination of attitudes (introversion and extroversion) and functions (thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition).
  • Active Imagination: This is a meditation technique wherein the contents of one’s unconscious are translated into images, narrative, or personified as separate entities. It can serve as a bridge between the ego and the unconscious parts of the psyche.

To find a way to explain the present social anxiety about gender using these Jungian principles, each of these characteristics would need to be considered in the context in which each person is trying to make sense of their social and personal experience. For example, the dominance of extroversion in Western societies has been challenged by the sudden accessibility of the internet, which requires a high-level of introverted capacity to deal with.

So, while the Anima and Animus can be seen as traditional binary concepts, Jung’s theories extend beyond this binary to encompass a more complex understanding of identity. Jung posits that individuation, the process of becoming an ‘individual’ or psychologically ‘whole’, involves integrating and acknowledging all aspects of the self, including the Anima and Animus, but also the Ego, the archetypes, and the personality. Jung’s process, therefore, invites an exploration and acceptance of both masculine and feminine aspects, irrespective of one’s biological sex, while situating this element of a person’s sense of self within a constellation of different competing and interacting elements.

Furthermore, Jungian theory acknowledges that these archetypes can manifest differently across individuals and cultures. These variations reflect the fluid and unstable nature of some people’s gender manifestations. Think of the hypermasculine man who prefers the company of hyper-feminised women. Our personality, which gives form to our external identity, is a complex manifestation of the different components of the psyche, as manifested through our biological reality.  Jung’s concept of ‘individuation’ and the acceptance of developing and interlinked archetypes can thus provide a framework for understanding and sex-based identities, and the relationship that they have with the cultural expression of those identities.

Moreover, while acknowledging the collective aspects of gender experience, we must remember the uniqueness of individual experiences. Each person’s journey with sexual identity is personal and unique, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution or understanding. In Jung’s words, “The shoe that fits one person pinches another; there is no recipe for living that suits all cases.” So, while the debate around gender identity continues to evolve, Jung’s theories provide a valuable lens through which to view and understand this complex issue. By recognising the fluidity of gender identities and appreciating the diversity of individual experiences, we can foster a more inclusive, empathetic, and understanding society.

To develop an attitude towards discussions about sex, sexuality, gender and gender identity, we must resist reductionist models of the manifestation of the sense of self. Jung’s great insight was to respect the capacity of humans to find the infinite universe meaningful, while struggling to find our sense of worth and value a struggle.

The job of our times, Jung argued in the 1950s, when the world was facing seemingly insoluble and apocalyptic problems, was to avoid thinking that we can heal these divisions. Jung’s insight was to accept that we can only aim to outgrow these things. As Jung remarks:

“I think it depends on how many people can stand the tension of the opposites in themselves. If enough can do so, I think the situation will just hold, and we shall be able to creep around innumerable threats and thus avoid the worst catastrophe of all: the final clash of opposites in an atomic war. But if there are not enough and such a war should break out, I am afraid it would inevitably mean the end of our civilization as so many civilizations have ended in the past but on a smaller scale.”

We are far from facing the end of our civilisation, and we can find a way to resolve these tensions.

Liked it? Take a second to support Decentered Media on Patreon!

Become a patron at Patreon!