Carl Jung and the personality types
DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE CARL JUNG’S THEORY CONCERNING PERSONALITY TYPES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO DIFFERENT FORMS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTURBANCE.
Word count 3482.
Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung (1875 – 1961) was unique among his early twentieth century counterparts in rejecting the tabula rasa (clean slate) theory of individual human development. While nearly all of his generation believed that we as individuals enter into this world with no predefined personality types, or indeed, psychological details, Jung suggested that all personality types can be traced back to a series of archetypes, “an innate series of universal psychic dispositions that are present, to varying degrees of influence, in every man and woman” (Jung & Storr, 1998, p. 147).
Jung also believed that psychosis could manifest itself in individuals as a result of certain imbalances in the appearance of these dispositions. With this in mind it can be said that the influence of psychological structuralism played a part in Jung’s theory on personality types in that the dispositions he predicted had a psychological construct upon which the resulting personality is found. Jung’s theories were, at the time, directly opposed to the more commonly accepted tubula rasa, which suggested that all humans are born with a “clean slate” in terms of their psychological makeup and personality, external and internal factors would then have an influence on the personality and the psychological core beliefs of the individual during childhood and, less commonly, adulthood.
Jung’s Beliefs were that the mind of each individual is born with an innate primary mental structure already in place and that this structure is based on evolutionary pressures forming an individual unconscious predisposition. The way that these structures relate to each other and impact on one another is influenced totally by external environmental factors and learned behaviour rather than inborn personality characteristics. Jung dismissed the notion that somehow our personalities where set at birth claiming that this theory would indicate that our personalities are essentially genetic. While Jung did eventually accept that the formation of the personality did owe a little to the presence of genetic factors, he believed that if the framework was genetically determined then the personality itself is shaped from the increasing relationship between the various rudiments of the framework, with the weight of influence swinging constantly eventually focusing on one particular area, thereby defining personality. In applying these ideas to the topic of psychological disturbance Jung became convinced that establishing the development of the personality was greatly influenced by the concept of the Extravert and the Introvert.
Jung’s idea’s, in many ways, were based on a concept that, in examining good and bad mental health, it was impossible to define a difference between the two. As Donald Pennington notes Jung “recognised that if the concept of psychological disturbance were to be taken as a genuine phenomenon, it would also be necessary to establish the opposite, i.e. psychological non-disturbance, and Jung did not believe that this was possible” (Pennington, 2003, p. 149). Alternatively, Jung considered and took into account that all forms of personality manifestations could be, to some extent, a form of disturbance, and that the common culturally accepted notion of psychological disturbance was in reality a relative scale based on the degree to which the characteristics of an individual’s personality defied the norm. In fact, Jung went as far as to confront the popular belief (at that time) that there was a straightforward delineation between those individuals with mental disturbances and those without however, Jung believed that societies judgement of an individual as being ‘mentally disturbed’ was simply a reflection and had little or no impact on whether that individual was in fact, genuinely disturbed. An example of this would be an individual who operated very well within the populace, appearing to act normal and therefore not be judged as disturbed but could also at the same time, exhibit inner markers of immense psychological disturbance; such cultural definitions, Jung believed, were markers of convenience. In this way, Jung can be seen to be challenging the major concepts regarding the fundamental definition of psychological disturbance; as Pennington goes on to argue, “Jung did not believe that the personality types were set in stone, nor that psychological disturbance could be clinically isolated from the more general expression of personality” (Pennington, 2003, p. 150); rather, Jung’s ideas were based on a theory that an individual may exhibit many different personality types within what could conventionally be deemed a single mind. From his work with free association, Jung developed his notion of complexes and came to believe that within any personality, a series of complexes can exist and that these complexes can manifest themselves in a quick, seemingly automatic manner. And it was this idea of complexes that Jung used to explain how common cultural conceits can embed themselves into the personality. For example, a particularly accepted conceit is that of the idea of the ‘bad mother’ and Jung claimed that this particular conceit could be accepted into the personality and in turn could create within the personality, a ‘bad mother complex’, in which there exists a complex interaction between the external cultural values and those of the internal personality. Jung also saw the ego as a complex and found that as with any of the other complexes, the ego could be manipulated in exactly the same manner and this work with the ego formed the basis of much of Jung’s psychodynamic therapy.
Jung believed that we are born with archetypes already set in place and to a certain extent; there are also imbalances present between these differing archetypes in place from the start; however he also noted that these imbalances were affected by subsequent life experiences. It is worth noting that Jung also observed that there wasn’t a perfect balance for these archetypes, since “there is no ideal personality against which all others are to be judged” (Jung & Storr, 1998, p. 149); rather, Jung believed that the key to the development of an individuals personality was in the constant inevitable manifestations of these imbalances. Key to Jung’s theory of the archetypes was in how the process of actualisation shaped different personality types. Archetypes manifest themselves in a number of ways and Jung believed that this wasn’t based solely on the balances and imbalances and their relative relationship to one another but that there were also influences from external environmental factors.
For Jung, part of the process of actualisation helped develop the complexes and these then acted as functional units for the personal unconscious, “affecting the way, for example, that a child deals with his mother or father, who are viewed and compared to a series of archetypes that have been central to the child since birth” (Jung, 1992 ed, p. 31). The important elements of personality formation were for Jung, based around the development of the archetypes and their interactions with actualisation and complex-formations. Within his idea of the archetypes, Jung believed that the most powerful factors that impact upon an individual’s collective unconscious is that of the gender based anima and the animus; a psychological expression used to explain the projected inner personalities of the male and the female. For Jung, the archetypes, when taken together, formed the collective unconscious, which he believed represented fundamental elements of an individual’s social ease, or a lack thereof.
It was the degree in which the archetypes conflict with society, Jung argued, that formed some of the key beliefs regarding mental disturbance.
During his research into the concepts and ideas of the archetypes, Jung found their most popular idiom in the idea of the Extravert (Jung’s spelling) and the Introvert, which “represented the way in which the psychic energy of the libido manifested itself in the attitude of the individual” (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2007, p. 117). The Extravert and the Introvert are, in many ways, binary opposites; in that Extraverts gain their energy and motivation from people and the world outside the ‘self’ focusing on a breadth of experiences and prioritise kinetic, action orientated endeavours, the Introverts gain their energy and motivation from the world contained within them, focusing on their own profound experiences and considerations of the ‘self’. However, whilst Jung supposed this binary characteristic, many subsequent theorists have sought to classify that the Extravert and Introvert are linked much closer having a much stronger relationship to the anima and the animus (the masculine and feminine parts of the unconscious). Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic argues that “the binary opposition of the anima and the animus is far more fixed, and is the focal point of the unconscious around which the conscious aspects of the personality – the introvert and the extravert – manifest their differences” (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2007, p. 118). In this way, it is possible to see that the key four factors of the personality – the Extravert, the Introvert, the Anima and the Animus – are the four important elements in determining and shaping the conscious and unconscious mind; furthermore, it is possible to argue that serious mental illness can manifest itself in individuals who exhibit fundamental imbalances in these four main factors. (Corr & Mathews, 2009; Chamorro-Premuzic, 2007; Jung, 1992 ed; et al).
However, in Jung’s early analysis of mental disturbance and the personality types, much of his work centred on the Introvert and the Extravert. He initially believed that the Introvert and the Extravert represented the causes of many aspects of the formation of the personality, but not long after, changed his viewpoint and came to understand them as symptomatic of other deeper personality structures. As Corr and Matthews state, “Jung’s belief in the primacy of the archetype led him to consider the Introvert and the Extravert as functions of the same, rather than as primary drivers of their own personality-based manifestations” (Corr & Matthews, 2009, p. 89). As Jung continued to develop his theories on psychological disturbance, the Introvert and Extravert became progressively more central.
It is believed by many Jungian theorists, that the differences between Extraverts and Introverts manifest themselves in the different types of mental disturbances associated with schizophrenia; a psychological term for an individual who has difficulties with their perception or expression of reality. It is significant to note that Jung personally did not believe that such a mental illness was caused, or made more likely, by an Extravert or an Introvert personality type; but rather, he believed that “the schizophrenic develops separately… (and) is then delivered to the world via the personality type of the sufferer” (Jung, 1991 ed, p. 45). Jung suggested that Introverts had a tendency to be more prone to catatonic schizophrenia but there could be times when the individual breaks from the catatonic state in which case they “enter a phase of extremely dangerous behaviour to both the self and to others around them” (Pennington, 2003, p. 78). Extraverts, by contrast, are more inclined towards bipolar mania, in which the individual has violent shifts in mood between stages of extreme optimism to that of extreme pessimism. With this in mind, individuals suffering from bipolar disorder will have repeated behavioural swings of the anima or the animus (whichever is more dominant) forming high’s and low’s linked with dramatically different external manifestations of personality; such as, a feeling of high energy, euphoria and an undeterred positive attitude followed by a stage of immense despondency, self harm and even attempts at suicide. Examining this cyclic behaviour of the growth of the personality was one of Jung’s key breakthroughs. There was no hierarchy placed on these differing personality types and Jung believed that rather than a progression from one type to another, they appeared to be more at the opposite ends of the spectrum, he also believed that individuals existed, at any point along that spectrum and if the balance moved to an extreme in any noticeable direction along this spectrum then disturbances or psychological problems could manifest themselves.
Jung’s approach to this particular theory was somewhat of a step away from the conventional views at the time, which argued for a much clearer delineation between normal society and those deemed to have psychological disturbances. Jung argued that no individual was completely void from the influences that could cause these disturbances and believed that the creation of archetypes, when coupled with certain external influences, can lead to a psychic arrangement of Intraverted and Extroverted tendencies in such a manner as to determine the level to which an individuals personality could be understood as disturbed.
Jung was very keen on examining and analysing the psychology of the Intravert, since it was here that he saw “the greatest potential for analysis of the four basic functions” (Jung, 1992 ed., p. 87). The four basic functions according to Jung, were, sensation, intuition, thinking and feeling. Sensation, relates to all our sensory organs (e.g. eyes, nose, and ears) and how they interpret, experience and react to all the elements of the world around them. Intuition, refers to the conscious mind becoming aware of the functions held within the unconscious mind without the perception of such functions taking place, Jung termed this as “the silent engine” (Jung, 1992 ed., p. 88) of the personality. Thinking, relates to the intellectualisation of an eventuality, forming rational conclusions through cognitive processes. And finally, feeling, refers to the emotion based beliefs and decisions formed by an individuals subjective estimations. From these four basic functions, Jung then split them into rational (thinking and feeling) and the irrational (sensation and intuition), believing that the ‘rational’ is based on our experience and knowledge while the ‘irrational’ is based on prejudiced non-reasoning concepts of environmental and internal factors.
Jung argued that “the rational and irrational junctions can inter-relate and can manipulate one another, but they cannot change place” (Jung, 1992 ed., p. 18). Basically, there is no real switch in rationality and irrationality in terms of the level of an individual’s disturbance, merely a change in the emphasis of the manifestation. This said, Jung can be seen to argue for the primacy and stability of the archetypes, irrespective of how an individual’s personality subsequently develops, but the permanency of these archetypes is an important part of Jungian psychology since it signified the foundations of personalities against which the more influential elements can react and, more importantly, be judged. The four basic functions were designed to allow for the integration of the emotional and physical aspects of the personality within the boundaries of what Jung saw as an essentially rational framework.
Jung found it difficult to explain or incorporate irrationality within the archetype model, trying to contextualise such an irrationality by comparing its relationship to the rational functions of the personality, and it was this theory that “allowed (him) to create a model of psychological disturbance that allowed for a variety of personality types” (Chamorro-Prezumic, 2007, p. 124). Therefore, it can be seen that Jung’s personality types are driven more by the need to set up a relative scale by which to judge the degrees of psychological disturbance, rather than having a more black or white resolve of such a disturbance.
In Jung’s beliefs, the Introversion and the Extraversion personality can co-exist within certain individuals in such a manner that could expose that individual to mental illness. Jung believed, for example, an individual may appear, to those around him/her, to be introverted while at the same time, internally, have an extraverted personality, and that the interaction between the two contrasting elements of the mind can explain certain manifestations that could otherwise appear perplexing. While such a theory may, initially, sound like something of a conundrum, Jung, in his later work, became much more focused and convinced that the Introvert and the Extravert, far from being mutually exclusive binary opposites, might actually have a modular / twin relationship in which one dominated the conscious mind and the other dominated the unconscious. According to Jung, “the manifestation of the personality is primarily dominated by… the constituency of each element” (Jung, 1992 ed., P. 94); in other words, the concept of the Introvert and the Extravert elements of the personality can be seen as two sides of the same psychological force, prioritising different elements in the conscious and unconscious, based on certain internal and external factors. Tomas Chamorro-Prezumic sums it up as “the idea that we are all Introverts and Extraverts, but that for some of us our conscious mind is dominated by the Introvert and our subconscious mind by the Extravert, for some of us the other way round, and for some of us it’s a mix” (Chamorro-Prezumic, 2007, P. 126). Chamorro-Premuzic also agreed with Jung that a fair proportion of the population allow one particular factor to become more dominant, however it is not uncommon for an individual to allow their conscious and unconscious minds to switch between the two, with the latter cases at risk of developing disturbances such as bi-polar tendencies. Much of Jung’s work on the personality types and psychological disturbances can be seen to be predicated on the concept of polar psychology, i.e. the separation of psychological functions and processes into opposing functions. Perry R. Hinton and Jo Brunas-Wagstaff describe Jung’s particular approach to this subject as having “continually moved from one view to another over a long period, as he attempted to define the influence of bi-polar in terms of psychological function and personality types” (Hinton & Brunas-Wagstaff, 1998, p. 55); the use of the term bi-polar here refers to a much broader range of psychological and personality influences, rather than to the specific bi-polar mental disorder. It was here that Jung moved away from the much simpler bi-polar oppositional model pertaining to the concept of the Introvert and the Extravert and focused on a much more complex idea that each function could alter its relationship with the conscious and subconscious at any moment.
Throughout the history of psychiatry, Jung’s theories regarding personality types and their impact upon psychological disorders became an extremely important and influential contribution. In particular, Jung formed a friendship and close working relationship with Sigmund Freud, who like Jung, also believed in the power of the unconscious mind. However, Jung differed somewhat from Freud in that he believed that in addition to the unconscious aspect of the personality there was a much deeper level of subconscious knowledge; in this way, Jung was arguing in favour of a relative subconscious in which some elements could be seen as pseudo-rational in terms of their relationship to the deeper levels. Here, Jung’s work can be seen to focus on a new concept of personality in which various factors are continually having an influence on one another and binary oppositions are broken down in favour of a relative scale. Perry R. Hinton and Jo Brunas-Wagstaff’s view of Jung’s concept of psychological disturbance can be summed up as “the belief that individuals possess a certain innate, shared archetype but develop their own rational and irrational personality traits that impact upon their position relative to the extremes of comatose schizophrenia and bi-polar mania” (Hinton & Wagstaff, 1998, P. 204). This may be a little simplistic of a summation as Jung also believed that the Introvert and the Extravert, rather than being mutually exclusive, may co-exist within each subject; and the shifting relationship of these two factors with regards to the rational and irrational elements of the personality defines Jung’s beliefs of the mechanism whereby psychological disturbances develop within the framework of the personality. In particular, Jung’s favoured view that the archetypes and the complexes that exist within the personality, are just two of a number of functions that interact in such a way as to manifest their changing positions in the constantly shifting balance between the Introvert and the Extravert. In this way, Jung’s particular psychoanalytical stance on personality disorder and psychological disturbance can be clearly seen to include both the determining psychological elements of a child’s growth (Excluding the tabula rasa theory) and the way in which external factors have influence and impact on the development of the personality and the subsequent manifestation of psychological disorder.
Bibliography
Chamorro-prezumic, Tomas (2007). ‘Personality and the individual differences’. London: Blackwell Publishing. 240.
Corr, Phillip J. & Gerald Matthews (2009). ‘The Cambridge Handbook of personality Psychology’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 904.
Hinton, Perry R. & Jo Brunas-Wagstaff (1998). ‘Personality: A Cognitive Approach’. London & New York: Routledge. 184.
Jung, C.G. (1991 ed). ‘The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious’. London & New York: Routledge. 480.
Jung. C.G. (1992 ed). ‘Psychological Types’. London & New York: Routledge. 640.
Jung, C.G. & Anthony Storr (1998). ‘Jung: The Essential Jung: Selected writings’. New York: Fontana Press. 448.
Jung. C.G. (2002 ed). ‘The Undiscovered Self’. London & New York: Routledge: 96.
Larsen, Randy J. & David M. Buss (2006). ‘Personality psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature’. London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. 759.
Pennington, Donald (2003). ‘Essential Personality’. London: Hodder Education. 296.
Young-Eisendrath, Polly & Terrence Dawson (2008). ‘The Cambridge Companion to Jung’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 378.