Dream Incubation: the Roles of Instinct and Archetype in Ritual

Dream Incubation: The Roles of Instinct and Dr. Vincenza A. Tiberia* E.mail: [email protected]. ** E.mail: [email protected]. * ** Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Dream Incubation: Dr. Vincenza A. Tiberia Abstract: to show both (1) that attributing simple dichotomies to his out the relations between evolutionary biology and symbolic activity in a way that can be useful in understanding both dream symbolism and dream incubation—that is, the ritual evocation of “big and archetypes, and show the importance of the notion of psychoid process in bridging the archetypal and ritual evocation of dreams across cultures using and active imagination Keywords: process. 458 ÉjÈÑjÉJ Éjõæ«°ûæ«a .O Údƒd õdQÉ°ûJ .O .CG :¢üî∏ŸG ¬àjô¶f ≈dEG á£«°ùÑdG äÉYôØàdG áÑ°ùf ¿CG ,’hCG ,¿É«Ñd á«°ùØædG äÉ«eÉæjó∏d ≠fƒj Qƒ¶æe ∫É≤ŸG Gòg ‘ ∞°ûµà°ùf ihóL i*3b/¡pF¢<¥yExD*b~{D*H¥4¡gD*$b£0&°*<Í+ábÓ©dG í°VhCG ≠fƒj ¿CG ,É«fÉKh . ºFGO CÉ£N ÚH ábÓ©dG ‘ Üôb øY ô¶æf ºK.ziÈµdG{ ΩÓMC’G AÉYóà°SG ¢ù≤W ,Gójó–h . É¡Fƒ°ûfh ΩÓMC’G ájõeQ º¡a ‘ »°Sƒ≤£dG π©ØdGh ájõeôdG ÚH Iƒ¡dG ΩOQ ‘ á«°ùØædG äÉ«∏ª©dG Ωƒ¡Øe á«ªgCG ¿É«H á«¨H á«dhC’G êPÉªædGh õFGô¨dG ∫ÓN øe IOó©àe äÉaÉ≤K ÈY ΩÓMCÓd ‹hC’G êPƒªædGh ΩÓMC’G AÉYóà°SG ¢Sƒ≤W ¢üëØf ,∂dP øY Ó°†a . ≈°ü≤àf Éªc ,á£°ûædG á∏«îŸGh ΩÓMC’G Aƒ°ûf É¡H §ÑJôJ »àdG á«Ø«µdG ≈∏Y πdófh ,á«aGôZƒæKCG äÉfÉ«H ΩGóîà°SG . º∏◊G É¡H πª©j »àdG á«Ø«µ∏d ≠fƒj ájô¶f ‘ çóMC’G áHQÉ≤ŸG äÉ«∏ª©dG ,º∏◊G QÉ°†ëà°SG ,Iõjô¨dG ,á«dhC’G êPÉªædG ,IQƒ£°SC’G/¢ù≤£dG Ió≤Y ,á«¨fƒ«dG É«LƒdƒHhÌfC’G :á«°SÉ°SCG äÉë∏£°üe .á«eÉæjódG á«°ùØædG 459 Yet this division between “rational complex and useful than any psychological man” and “irrational brute” cannot anthropologists have thus far developed. really be maintained. It is true that as Moreover, Jung’s thinking has the added one progresses along the scale of living advantage of being consonant with modern species in the direction of simpler and neuroscience, neuroethology, cognitive less intricately organized nervous systems neuroscience, developmental psychology innate behavior plays a more and more and developmental linguistics. Jungian important role, and the ability to modify theory offers ethnology a conceptual behavior in the light of experience (to bridge between biology and culture that “learn,” that is) becomes less important. can take us very far toward transcending The difference in this respect between simple mind-body, culture-biology and man and other animals is not that between nature-nurture dichotomies that seem “yes” and “no” but, rather, that between to have adhered to ethnology over the “more” or “less.” generations like bubblegum to shoe Isaac Asimov, The Human Brain leather. It is our intention in this paper to explore Jung’s view of psychodynamics INTRODUCTION and to show both (1) that attributing simple One of the major hindrances that dichotomies to his theory are wrong- have kept anthropologists from applying headed, and (2) that Jung worked-out the Carl G. Jung’s depth psychology to relations between evolutionary biology cross-cultural phenomena is the very and symbolic activity in a way that can common, but naïve and mistaken idea set ethnology back on the right track.2 that Jung posited a categorical distinction We will discuss how an application of between instincts and archetypes.1 Jungian theory can provide us a platform assuming this distinction, ethnologists for applying modern neuroscience and fail to apply one of the most powerful other biogenetic research perspectives and ethnologically useful models of to ethnological issues by showing human depth psychology available in how inherited structures produce the literature. If a symbolic activity is psychological and cultural variation. We culturally “constructed,” ethnologists will offer a number of examples of how often argue, then the activity cannot inherited structures mediate learning be archetypal in any inherited sense, and adaptation throughout the animal because the activity varies from society kingdom. Our intention is to demonstrate to society depending upon enculturative how a Jungian anthropology allows us to and environmental contingencies. Thus get rid of the old assumption that at some point in prehistory the human brain and its “nature vs. nurture” conditioning about mental functions ceased to be genetically culture and cross-cultural psychology determined and in some kind of saltation— upon a theoretical framework far more some form of Rubicon-like revolution— 460 transcended being a biogenetic organ and constitutes part of one’s distinctly human collective unconscious.3 The archetypes are structures that mediate this issue). The Jungian approach allows all we psychologically share as members embracing both the universal aspects of the human species. Depending upon of human psychology and the various adaptation to the physical and social transformations of cultural traits among environment, some archetypes develop individuals and local societies so richly while others languish in a relatively described by ethnographers. undeveloped state. When archetypes (neural circuits) develop into more elaborated structures (or networks)— INSTINCT AND ARCHETYPE IN usually amalgamating perceptual, JUNGIAN THEORY affective, cognitive, behavioral and other As some readers will already know, processes—they are called complexes. Jung concluded that the foundations Interaction with the physical and of the psyche are the innumerable sociocultural environments are primary archetypes we inherit by virtue of being in the development of complexes, and thus the entire psyche (the sum total of a detailed account of the archetypes and all archetypes and complexes, whether their relevance for anthropology). These conscious or unconscious) as a whole is archetypes are the same for everyone on the product of both genetic inheritance the planet, regardless of culture. and adaptation (including the results of enculturation). Man “possesses” many things which he Jung argued for a fully embodied his ancestors. He is not born a tabula consciousness. One complex among rasa, he is merely born unconscious. many becomes the presiding structure we call the ego (i.e., the “I”). One function are organized and ready to function in of consciousness is to maintain the relationship between the ego and the he owes to millions of years of human unconscious (Jung, CW 14, 371n). The development. Just as the migratory and development of the ego and consciousness nest-building instincts of birds were unfold hand-in-hand. Metaphorically speaking, “...the conscious rises out of brings with him at birth the ground-plan of the unconscious like an island newly his nature, and not only of his individual risen from the sea” (Jung, CW 17, 52). nature but of his collective nature. (Jung, The psyche is full of structures that CW 4, 315) mediate aspects of perception, cognition, imagination, emotion and action that The sum total of the inherited may or may not be conscious to the archetypes in everyone’s brain ego—some in fact never are. Above all, 461 consciousness for Jung is not a thing, nor an entity, but rather a very Jamesian and are mediated by neural circuits higher up in the central nervous system called “innate releasing mechanisms.” Once or complex enters ego awareness. triggered, instinctual structures produce a Consciousness usually manifests with the largely invariant, all-or-none, behavioral ego at its center. response (like a computer subroutine).4 The relationship between the archetypes and the instincts is not a in the animal world and include most simple duality in Jung’s thought. The aggression displays and courtship rituals, relationship is rather more complex than as well as protective, predator-avoidance that, and is at the very core of the powerful responses—e.g., moths upon hearing a model that Jungian theory potentially bat’s echolocation sounds will instantly provides for anthropology. fold their wings and head for the ground. Instinctive mental processes are characterized by (1) being motivated Instincts by unconscious “inner necessity,” (2) For Jung the instincts are inherited occurring universally among a species, (3) structures that are more complex than are “wired” to adaptational sense when examined react to a stimulus instantaneously, and the evolutionarily, and (5) being inherited response is completed within a fraction of channels of libido (or “psychic energy; a second. “When I speak of instinct …I Jung, CW 5, 128-131, CW6, 765). As mean what is commonly understood by Jung wrote: this word, namely, an impulsion towards Only those unconscious processes certain activities. The impulsion can which are inherited, and occur uniformly come from an inner or outer stimulus and regularly, can be called instinctive. At which triggers off the mechanism of the same time they must show the mark of instinct psychically, or from organic sources which lie outside the sphere of 5 psychic causality” (Jung, CW 6, 765). For example, when a doctor taps our knee or ankle with her little rubber hammer, the more complicated. …Instincts share with is rapid and totally unconscious because as well as the unconsciousness of their it is mediated by mechanisms at the motivations (Jung, CW 8, 131). spinal cord level. Instincts are the more An immediate aversion to snakes is complex structures that mediate behaviors an instinctual reaction (Jung, CW 8, 130- of the kind that ethologists today call 462 including humans. The response is analogies between the forms and motifs unconscious, and demonstrates the “inner of autochthonous myths. The universal necessity” (or unconscious motivation) similarity of human brains leads to the element. The response makes perfect universal possibility of a uniform mental sense in terms of adaptation over functioning. This functioning is the thousands of years to potential danger, collective psyche… .

Load more