The best political, social and spiritual work we can do is to withdraw the projection of our shadow onto others.
The quote above is attributed to Carl Jung by Laurens van der Post in his book, Jung and the Story of Our Time. Even if it’s not Jung in his own words, it sums up a wide spread idea in psychodynamic psychology, namely that we project our own inner problems onto the outer world and then we tend to fight in the external world wars which actually belong to our internal world. The projection is a psychological defensive mechanism and it is clearly described and well known in psychoanalysis and the schools of psychotherapy emerging from it. It emphasizes that there is a moment when we simply cannot afford to see ourselves in a dark perspective, so there is a failure of assuming our own shadow (basically, we cannot accept that we’re stupid, evil or “less” than what we imagine ourselves to be); the result is the mechanism of projecting from our psyche that part (or parts) we deem impossible to portray us (given their negative nature). These negative parts are not simply projected outside (repressed or isolated), but are also glued to persons or situations that resemble to our inner structures we cannot accept. Then, our mind is tricking us into believing that those persons or situations are truly evil or worthy of contempt (therefore also worthy of punishment or destruction), and so we feel ourselves relieved of the pressure that we might be such an evil and negative person. There is, undoubtedly, an emotional benefit: we feel better about ourselves. But there is also a disadvantage: we move a conflict, which should be inside us, into the exterior world.
This is how wars are born. By defensive projection. Instead of killing (or solving, or healing) that part of us which we deem problematical, we go outside in a killing spree. And then we ask ourselves – just like Germans asked themselves after the Holocaust – what the hell just happened!?!
For some time I keep seeing the awakening of the anti-Semitic sentiment, following the seemingly forever-lasting Gaza conflict. We can remain at the lowest level of understanding and take sides, or we can move a bit deeper (or higher) and see everything from a different perspective.
At the lower level, the Jewish people has managed to make itself hated by the entire world, which is something truly remarkable. The Jews are hated even by people with whom they have no common history, people who have nothing to share with them. And everyone is asking: Why this hate? Why non-Jews hate Jews? Several answers could be given. An emotional answer could be that the Jews have the pride and the nerve to declare themselves the Chosen People (by God), and since the Christianity is based on the Bible, this “impertinence” annoys almost everyone. A more rational answer could be that Jews are generally rich and well-educated, and people know instinctively that high education and more money is linked to corruption, duplicity and dirty deals. I mean, a people killed by thousands by pretty much everyone, instead of disappearing, still thrives and apparently rules the world, both through finances, political power (linked to the United States) and religion. Simple logic tells people that the Jews should be gone by now, should have disappeared from history; yet, they’re still around, stronger than ever. And ready to corrupt and poison the humanity, if we are to believe the abundance of conspiracy theories. Faced with this situation, pretty much every “good citizen” feels it’s their duty to “fight the spread of evil” and “save the world”, sometimes saving the “intoxicated”, “bewildered” or “brainwashed” world from… itself…
So this is the lower perspective, widely found everywhere on all continents and on the internet. It’s a reductionist perspective because it forces everyone to be either for or against the Jews. We can therefore say that this is a polarizing perspective. And we can also say that this perspective leads to only one outcome: the War. Or the Conflict. And if it’s not a generalized war (another World War perhaps), then the conflict buries itself and smolders deep in the collective unconscious mind (from where it erupted recently), waiting for the next favorable time to resurface… or reignite… As long as we use this divisive perspective, this extreme dichotomous thinking of “black or white”, there cannot be peace.
We can use however a higher (or deeper) perspective. And for this we need to remember what a scapegoat is (credits go to… well… the Bible). Basically, a scapegoat is a real goat on which, metaphorically, all the sins of a given population were cast upon (or projected, so as to use the contemporary term); subsequently, the goat was either sent (banished) into the desert so as to die, or was sacrificed. Psychologically, it was a relief to escape (so easily) of one’s sins.
Question: Aren’t we doing the same thing with the Jews?
Aren’t the Jews nothing but our own and private scapegoat that can be blamed for all the things that we couldn’t solve (or accept) in ourselves?
Just think for a moment!…
We say that the Jews are rich; Why aren’t we rich as well?!? What prevents us from becoming rich?!?
We say that the Jews help each other and they thrive together; Why aren’t we help each other then?!? Why can’t we gather together just like the Jews do?!?
We say that the Jews have political power and lead the world; Why aren’t we bold enough to take the lead of the world or at least the lead of our own individual lives?!?
Take some time to ponder on what you blame the Jews for. And then ask yourself why you can’t do the same thing they apparently seem to be able to do. Don’t “scapegoat” them! Reflect on the possibility that you project on the Jews some nasty things you don’t accept about yourself!
Connect your conscious mind with that unconscious “Inner Jew” that lies in yourself, undiscovered or neglected, definitely unaccepted! And after – only after you have dealt with your own shadow – come back to start a war with the outer world… if there is any war left to fight…
Or… it just could be that the Jewish people are, in fact, the chosen people. Why would God choose them rather than the rest of mankind? He chose them to bless all of mankind and not just them. Their complex history demonstrates that this “choice” and their unfaithfulness to God, resulted in persecution down through the ages (the Persians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Ottoman Empire, the Spanish, the Germans, the Russians…) as well as throwing them out of their ancestral land to wander the earth in diaspora. It has only been since 1948 that they have had that land restored to them and from that time forward they have been surrounded by hostile Arab nations that have made repeated attempts to eradicate them. To try and simplify this, as it appears you have done, is to do an injustice to history and to the Jewish people. Personally (and this is just me) I don’t like the phrase, “inner Jew”. There is no such thing. There are poor Jews, academically challenged Jews, racist Jews, etc. As to why people hate them worldwide, that has little to do with their success and far more to do with complex theological explanations which are too cumbersome to attempt to iterate here. I will say that your opening quote from Jung (who was a brilliant mind) can easily stand on its own without linking it to the Jewish people as you have done.
First, you do not seem to come to my blog in good faith. Second, I am a bit more subtle than what you seem to understand from my writing. Third, you come from a position of certitude regarding the existence of God in the first place, which has little to do with the subject discussed in this article, namely the inner psychological conflicts. Fourth, I intentionally simplify everything so as to get easier to the point of projection; it has nothing to do with the history of Jews or with taking sides. Or with religion altogether. Fifth, if you come to criticise and bring negativity only for the sake of it, it is unlikely that I approve any new comments from you.
Count all the points you like and make up excuses, it’s simply an attempt at justifying your piece (i.e. you don’t come to my blog in good faith: oh, so you’re a mind reader now… just because I happen to disagree with your erroneous take on the Jewish experience I’m at fault?). Fine, I’ll leave permanently. Talk to the air on your soapbox and pretend to have made some brilliant analysis of things far beyond your grasp. Jung was absolutely spot on. You’re off by about a country mile. And it seems to me, you might want to do a double-take on your antisemitism leanings.
Since you leave permanently, I wish you farewell Dapperpop5475!
Now, for the rest of my readers, a bit of learning experience:
1. In a debate or a comment exchange, if you disagree with someone, you can’t name their argument as erroneous because you’re making an a priori judgement about that particular argument. The idea is to show why their side is wrong without labeling them as false; you let the audience decide or you reach a point where it is obvious for everyone that they are wrong. If you begin with the statement that someone is wrong, you will undoubtedly arrive at your already decided position that they are wrong and any argument the other person might bring into discussion will be declared as being wrong based on what you have already decided (that they are wrong). This is a logical failure and a debate can’t be made based on such a statement.
2. Using intuition and reading between lines, the commenter is shifting in the emotional realm, using blaming instead of reason, and choosing a superior tone, the one used by a child (the child mode from transactional analysis) playing the role of a moralizing parent (the child faking the parent). In other words, the commenter is shifting the territory of the debate from the rational side (where they probably know they can’t win easily or not at all) to the emotional side (where everything can be said without being justified). An attentive reader must notice this shift. As examples, the commenter is implying I’m making up excuses (I don’t), is overtly offensive and ironic (“you are a mind reader now” & “talk to the air in your soap box”), implies I am anti-Semitic (in fact the article is slightly pro-Jew and definitely pro-peace) and the commenter decides to teach me a lesson (“I will leave permanently”, as if I might care about having more followers, which I don’t).
3. When you get a feedback – even a negative feedback – you have touched someone enough so as to get out of their comfort zone and write back. Probably you had something to say that resonated with another mind. If negativity doesn’t bother you too much, keep writing! 🙂
Why would anyone (and of course I include myself) want to “keep writing” when you refuse to acknowledge his/her opinion relating to something you’ve written and simply psychoanalyze their response? I don’t need you to “read between the lines” and make a guess at my “shifting in the emotional realm” and then claiming I am “choosing a superior tone”. No thank you. I’ve more productive things to do with my time (at least my wife claims I have). What you perceive as my “teaching you a lesson by declaring that I would henceforth leave permanently” was simply a statement of fact (i.e. I have no intentions of reading anything new that you have to say going forward). It’s your blog so you’re entitled to have the last word(s). I don’t know you nor do you know me. A few sentences on a subject cannot reveal the inner person (you of all people should know this). I never claimed you were antisemitic but said that I was uncomfortable with the term (inner Jew) being used to tie together two disparate subjects. I’m going to leave my comments there. Besides, my wife’s tapping foot is becoming increasingly threatening so that’s it for me. Let’s just leave this discourse as an impasse.