Up until this point, religious institutions had dominated education, with the exception of Germany which mandated some form of state education be provided to boys from the late sixteenth century. In other places around Europe and Australia, state run education was introduced in a piecemeal fashion throughout the 1800s, albeit, initially boys were expected to attend and girls were not. By roughly the beginning of the 1900s education was mostly mandatory for both genders, however, some subjects (like woodwork and advanced sciences) were solely for boys and other subjects (like needlework and cooking) were solely for girls. As for women entering universities, to do so was still an exception thwarted with challenges. Certain fields of study, like medicine, were specifically off limits. For example, in 1900 Italy, Maria Montessori (1870 – 1952) had to get written permission from the Pope in order to study to become a doctor.
Montessori was Italy’s first female physician. Her speciality area was children with disabilities and in addition to caring for their physical health, she observed that practical craft and art activities helped them. She went on to study philosophy and psychology, then developed an education system based on her scientific-based observations of child development. Montessori believed that lack of support for children was the cause of delinquency. Further, when children were placed in environments appropriate for their age, they developed as individuals with reduced personality issues and a healthy social conscience. Montessori education continues today and is considered to be a holistic approach that recognises a child’s whole being, physically, mentally, and emotionally. Montessori was nominated for a Nobel prize in three consecutive years prior to her death.
It strikes me as odd that women have long been typecast as natural mother’s and experts in raising children, but when a woman trained professionally in that area, her scientific skills and observations went unrecognised by academia. I wonder if that is because universities have a tradition of being boys clubs?
By the 1900s Aristotle based education had mostly been abandoned, however, not entirely. An ex-priest by the name of Franz Brentano (1839-1917) became a Doctor of Philosophy on account of his thesis about Aristotle. Why is Brentano significant? Because amongst his many students who went on to become renowned in the psychology field was Sigmund Freud. Brentano introduced Aristotle to Freud. Freud then went on to appropriate many of Aristotle’s ideas (see Is Aristotle Overrated?).
In Freud, we potentially see the most obscure and outrageous claims of symbols having hidden meanings. Freud, however, was not creative nor did he demonstrate higher order critical thinking skills when it came to giving new meaning to symbols. Instead, he insisted that all elongated objects were references to penises and all objects with an opening were references to vaginas. Needless to say, his interpretations totally lack research into historical and cultural contexts in which symbols were made. To put it mildly, he was equivalent to an art therapist insisting that a small figure in a corner of the page was indicative of low self esteem without giving regard to the art maker’s intentions of wanting room to move.
Despite obvious flaws in his theories, Freud went on to be the founding cult leader of psychoanalysis. Many of his followers were also interested in occultism and viewed Freud’s explanations of hidden meanings in art, dreams, literature, and other creative expressions to be truisms that had been lost in time. Personally, if Freud was a student in one of my Art history classes, I would fail him.
Food for though: In my casual observations as a teacher, I have noted that people seem to view Montessori as being some airy-fairy, new age education system, and conversely, they view Freud as being a man of science. However, when the theories of child development are compared, there is a lot more evidence to suggest Freud was the ungrounded, airy-fairy one, and Montessori was a practical minded scientist.
Freud’s protege, Jung, was a lot more thorough in his research of symbols, their history, and their meaning. At the risk of sounding condescending, I am impressed with how well he understood some symbology, like in the following:
The meaning of the “ministering wind” is probably the same as the procreative pneuma, which streams from the sun-god into the soul and fructifies it. The association of sun and wind frequently occurs in ancient symbolism.
Carl Jung, The Concept of the Collective Unconscious, p.102
In the above quote, Jung’s commentary on air (ministering wind and pneuma) and fire (sun-god) shows an understanding of theologies related to concepts found in the classical elements (see The Four Elements in Theology and Ancient Texts). However, his conclusion that this occurred because of a “collective consciousness” is a mystical explanation that overlooks two obvious points. Firstly, as any gardener knows, the sun and the air (or wind) are significance factors (along with water and earth) that effect life on earth, therefore, the ancients’ use of these principles to symbolise esoteric phenomena is not surprising. The fructification of the air by the sun is a natural phenomenon everywhere around the earth. Secondly, besides over looking the indexical level of the symbolism (see The connection between symbolism and mental wellbeing: The basics), Jung overlooked the fact that Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Christians shared symbols and concepts (hence the similarities. (The writings of Iamblicus demonstrates this point well in regards to Egypt and Greece ideologies). Jung’s marvelling of crossovers between ancient civilisations is a bit like marvelling over the similarities in culture between England, Australia, and America without identifying historical links.
The greatest point on which Jung’s theories can be falsified is on account of symbols being universal. He overlooked symbols’ ability to adapt and be appropriated by skilled artisans, like Tintoretto, Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael, and many others. He also overlooked artistic traditions (unspoken rules) and the history of art as a series of progressive movements. Arguably, Jung was so focused on trying to work out the mysteries of the so-called occult that he overlooked education and personal experiences as being foundational aspects of man-made symbolism.
It is also possible that Jung, and his supporters, are so indoctrinated into cultures that support Plato’s theory of so-called universality (i.e., the theory of forms) that their “shadow” prevents them from appreciating the infinite capabilities of human creativity. (Jung claimed the Shadow was the unconscious aspect of the ego that could prevent one from seeing the realities before then; in a nut shell, Jung’s theory of the shadow is an appropriation of spiritual concepts found in Ancient Egyptian theology).
Psychoanalysis neglects recognition that creativity is an activity often blended with humour, wit, irony, puns, and various other quaint qualities. The so-called science of psychoanalysis is based on outdated framework of the mind in which creativity is perceived as being a function located in a specific part of the brain, whilst contemporary findings support it is actually a whole brain activity.
Essentially, creativity is a process in which prior knowledge is deconstructed then reconstructed in a new way. In other words, it is a problem solving process. Depending upon the message one wants to convey, the manner in which symbols, words, and gestures are put together will differ. Contemporary neuroscience explanations of creativity is well presented in the Netflix documentary, The Creative Brain.
Photo Source: Nonnaci
Diagram of Jung’s theory of consciousness : all of Jung’s concepts are appropriations of ancient traditions. For example, the terms Anima and Animus are Latin for soul and spirit (Anima = feminine noun and Animus = masculine noun). Therefore, the original Latin meanings are not the same as Jung’s. Similarly, Jung claims the Shadow is the unconscious aspect of the ego, a concept derived but different to the Ancient Egyptian concept of Shuyet, the shadow self.
There is a strong element of irony in the manner in which Jung took concepts, names, and symbols from a variety of ancient traditions and effectively created a new religion.
Jung’s theories are not without worth, however, they need to be viewed in the context in which they were made: a summary and harmonisation of ancient theology. Moreover, his archetypes are stereotypes of symbology created by our patriarchal forefathers.
A genuine archetype, in the ancient Greek sense of the word, is a prototype; a model that can be built upon and diversified. For example, the first bicycle ever invented has similarities to today’s models but there have been many alterations and improvements. From wooden frames with no peddles through to penny-farthings and motorised e-bikes. Most bikes have some similar features in so much as they have two wheels (some have more) and they enable people to move from place to place at a quicker pace than walking. The point is, there is no universal bike, over the years there has been much diversity and improvements. Further, one also needs to question if a bike can be called an “archetype” in the first place. What did a bike evolve from? A carriage? A chariot? The invention of the wheel? A rock rolling down a hill? Or is a bike more like the evolution of horse? That is the way archetypes (prototypes) are supposed to be; they change. Jung’s theory that archetypes don’t change goes against the grain of human nature, namely, the creative spirit. (I explore this concept in The Big Bang Theory in Egyptian Mythology.)
Continuing on a theology level, Abrahamic religions present the symbolic image of the first human as being male (Adam) but elsewhere, like the First Nations people of New Zealand, creation stories depict the first human as female (Hineahuone). If there’s an except to the rule, there is no rule.
People are diverse and our species is constantly evolving. If one wants to dip their toe into Darwinism, one could even ask, what were humans before being human?
My research suggests many of our ancestors perceived a dualistic approach to evolution, i.e., as the physical body ascended from “earth” and “water” and our ethereal essence descended from “air” and “fire” substances. That, however, is a simplistic way to describe and harmonise ancient theology.
To not throw the baby out with the bath water, Jung’s categorisations of archetypes such as ruler, creator, sage, outlaw, explorer, caregiver, and so forth can be of value in certain circumstances. They are relatable, easy to read symbols that have a shared tradition across westernised cultures. They are a language of symbolism that can be used to open up conversations and tease out ideas. The great danger is in taking them to be finite. Moreover, there is the risk that if they are taken as universal truths then they can be used to promote sexism and misogyny, as Jordan Peterson (1962 – ) does.
I do not disagree with everything Peterson says but his conclusions about the meanings of mythological symbolism is a perfect example of how psychoanalytic theories can be detrimental to understanding true history and genders issues. Peterson asserts Jung’s theories of archetypes to be correct and therefore are a means of justifying patriarchal values. I call out some of Peterson’s shallow research practices in No Peterson, Chaos is not a universal feminine trait found across mythology. Even more alarming is Peterson’s mis-telling of myths to support his sexist agenda of promoting the idea that men are naturally supposed to dominate women.
In a YouTube clip in which Peterson is giving a lecture to university students about Egyptian mythology (Jordan Peterson Tells An Old Story About Gods), he states that Osiris ruled Egypt and his partner, Isis, was the Queen of the underworld. He even goes so far as to say Isis is the archetype of a hyena and compares her to the hyenas in Walt Disney’s The Lion King. (FYI, studying ancient theology by watching children’s movies is not an endorsed form of academia.) I suspect, Ancient Egyptians would turn in their graves if they had heard what he was saying. To them, Isis was their much beloved Queen of Heavens and a woman who possessed profound magic and healing powers. She was affiliated with the Pharaoh’s throne, namely because she helped her son, Horus, be a great leader. Conversely, Osiris was Prince of the underworld where he judged the souls of the dead with Anubis, a jackal-headed god who ate the hearts of deceased if they were heavier than a feather.
Throughout the video, Peterson states many eyebrow raising comments which, to my detailed understandings of symbolism through art, indicate a very biased and incomplete view of history and ancient theology. Further, his over emphasis on hierarchies diminishes other life principles, like harmony; at no point does Peterson acknowledge how much the Ancient Egyptians prided themselves on maintaining harmony. While nations rose and fell around them, the Egyptian culture remained stable for about three thousand years. In fact, the Egyptians believed their civilisation was robust and superior to others because they honoured harmony. Peterson’s projection of patriarchal values onto Egyptians symbolism does not reflect what most scholars understand, through the study of hieroglyphs, to be a culture that embraced gender egalitarianism. The further one explores back into the history of Egypt, the more harmony between gender’s can be identified. Conversely, as Egypt became more influenced by other cultures, like Greece, the less gender equality that can be identified (Egypt became Hellenistic following Alexander the Great’s conquering of Alexandria, previously known as Rhakotis or Râ-Kedet).
Peterson’s oversights of theology and history can be further identified by reviewing the writings of Iamblichus of the third century, an Egyptian priest and Neoplatonist. When speaking to a Greek philosopher, Iamblichus explains that the Egyptians understood the Greek’s classical elements, however, where the Greeks arranged the elements of earth, water, air, and fire, into a hierarchy, the Egyptians believed the elements worked in equal proportions, in harmony.
In sum, my assessment of Jungian psychoanalysis is that Jung conducted some thorough research, but he dismissed variables that disproved his hypothesises. Often Jung’s supporters, like Peterson, miss the subtleties of Jung’s research, and in doing so create a situation in which misinformation is shared as being factual. The misinterpretations of Jung’s theories are more alarming than Jung’s theories themselves, ie., Peterson is seen by many to be an authority feature and he has a cult following.
As a final note on psychoanalytic theory, I propose that the “Joseph-Gigolo complex” be brought into formal psychology discussions. It is a condition in which the person believes in the validity of psychoanalytical interpretations of symbolism despite being shown scientific and historical evidence to the contrary. Another key feature of someone, usually a man, with the Joseph Gigolo complex is that they tend to polarise men between the binary qualities of being fundamentally noble and worthy of being selected by God to partner the perfect woman, and father a perfect child, whilst at the same time being entitled to have sex and attention from multiple women at the same time. Men with the Joseph Gigolo complex have misogynistic tendencies; they tend to view women as objects not human beings, ie., they expect females to be like Mary’s or whores.
Perhaps universities could set aside a few hundred thousand dollars to prove the validity of the Joseph-Gigolo complex. Of course, such research groups would have to be run by women because, as we all know, men can get overly emotional and testostical whenever proof of their gender fitting into a Joseph or gigolo category arise.
(Note: this is a satirical commentary inspired by the social media avatar ManWhoHasItAll.)
My introduction to the word ego was as a child hearing the Australian rock band, Skyhooks, smashing out the lyrics to Ego is Not a Dirty Word. I had no idea what they were singing about but the rebellious tone of “don’t you believe what you’ve seen or you’ve heard” was very catchy. It was a popular song; it raced to the top of the charts soon after being released in April 1975 and stayed there for many months. It has come as somewhat of a surprise to realise, four decades later, that this band of flamboyantly dressed entertainers were making a profound intellectual comment on social attitudes and psychological constructs that were common at the time.
Skyhooks, 1976, Source: The Sydney Morning Herald
As inferred by the song, the term ego generally has some negative connotations, as is exemplified by related words like egotistical and egocentric. Skyhooks, however, exclusively link the term ego to self esteem by making the point that if a person has a strong ego they are more likely to have a satisfying life while, conversely, a person with a weak ego may need to self-medicate with alcohol to make up for lack of confidence.
In psychological and/or spiritual contexts, discussions of the ego can differ to the construct Skyhook’s present. The ego is often accompanied by directives to purify or train it. Sometimes, people are even told to let go of their ego, in which case they are literally being told to let go of their sense of self. I’m not sure if this is really what is meant or if ego and egotistical confused as being one and the same?
When reviewing ego theories, it’s easy to get the impression that it is some nuanced part of the psyche that one doesn’t have control over but ought to. Alternatively, it is a part of oneself that is best dissociated from if one wants to achieve some form of higher existence.
An article on Psychology Today attempts to explain why the concept of the ego is so confusing. It begins by identifying that “ego” is Latin for “I”. So if someone was to say “I love you” in Latin, they’d say “ego amo te”. Or to give another example, if I were to say “I am a storm” in Latin, I would say “Ego sum temperto”. (Not sure why I’d want to say that I am a storm, but anyway, you get the idea.)
The term ego largely came into vogue through the work of Sigmund Freud. However, things get interesting when it is realised that Freud never actually used the word ego. He used the word I, or ich to be precise because he spoke German, and ich is I in German. But this use of the word I is not necessarily a simple one.
Why did “I” get replaced with “ego” in English translations of Freud? The only explanation I’ve found (so far) is by Joseph Burgo who suggests that it was because ego sounds more scientific than I, therefore, Freud’s theories were more likely to be accepted by a broader audience. Burgo also points out that ego was already used within the English language; however, ego in English never simply meant I.
If I were to say “I am going to the bathroom” then the term “I” is being used as a noun to represent a person in a somewhat benign manner. Likewise, if I were to say “I love my life”, at the simplest level, the “I” is still only informative. Depending upon the tone, context, and listeners interpretation, “I love my life” may be heard as a declaration of a positive emotional state or it could be considered boastful. Basically, it is the intention behind the term “I” that psychologists refer to as the ego. The “I” that represents ego is a reference to how one sees oneself and, in turn, is wrapped up with notions of self worth and importance.
To explore the psychological construct of ego/I a little further, let’s have look at some examples from Freud:
“The ego is first and foremost a bodily ego; it’s not merely a bodily entity, but is itself a projection of a surface.”
“In this way the ego detaches itself from the external word. It is more correct to say: Originally the ego includes everything, later it detaches itself from the external world. The ego-feeling we now aware of is thus only a shrunken vestige of a far more extensive feeling – a feeling that embraced the universe and expressed an inseparable connection of the ego with the external world.”
“Children are completely egoistic; they feel their needs intensely and strive ruthlessly to satisfy them.”
Personally, I find reading Freud’s work makes more sense if “ego” is replaced with “I”.
In the case of the first example (the I is first and foremost a bodily I …) Freud is simply saying that the “I” is attached to a physical body and extends out from here.
In the second and third example (the I detaches itself from the external world… ) Freud is describing how children see their sense of self as being part of everything around them (egotistically), but as we mature, our sense of self becomes detaches from our external surroundings, that is to say we become more conscious individuals.
On this basic level, it is difficult to pick fault with the concept of an ego that Freud presents. The negative connotations come about when the ego is combined with Freud’s other infamous terminology, the superego and the id. Not surprisingly, the superego simply means the over-I, or as Freud said in German, the Uber ich. What is the superego? It is a concept of a better self, an “I” that is rational, calm, and has noble qualities. This can be likened to spiritualised concepts of a higher-self that is more dignified than the lower I. The id, on the other hand, represents irrational impulses and passions. Literally translated from Freud’s German, id is Latin for es, and es means it. Yes, that’s right, Freud used the word “it” as a technical term to describe the workings of the mind.
According to Freudian psychoanalysis, the ego needs to balance the passions of the id with the noble principles of the superego. Moreover, it is the strength of the id that makes this balancing act a difficult. Here are a few more quotes from Freud:
“It is easy to see that the ego is that part of the id which has been modified by the direct influence of the external world.”
“A transference neurosis corresponds to a conflict between ego and id, a narcissistic neurosis corresponds to that between between ego and super-ego, and a psychosis to that between ego and outer world.”
“Where id was, there ego shall be.”
Essentially, what Freud is saying in the above quotes is that if a person has a mental health issue, it is because the ego is out of balance, either due to too much influence from the id or the superego, but mostly the id.
It is prudent to keep in mind that there is no scientific evidence to support the constructs of the id, ego, or superego. They are categories that define ways of thinking that can loosely be defined as emotional (id) and cognitive (superego), hence, an individual’s ego is the product of thoughts and feelings. Despite lack of evidence, I don’t mind viewing humans in this manner. I do, however, have issue with finite definitions of the id and superego being asserted as facts due to researcher biases, for example, the Freudian belief that the id’s passions are solely sexual.
In Freudianism, the id is concerned with sexual drives, otherwise known as the libido, and is driven by pleasure principles (Freud 1923). The superego is characterised as a self-critical part that governs one’s conscience and sense of morality. And the ego is one’s image of their conscious self; a combination of conscious and unconscious drives afflicted with the superego and id (Thurschwell 2009).
In order to really understand Freudian theories, it’s useful to reflect on where he got his ideas from: the Ancient Greeks. Plato referred to individuals as having both a noble and ignoble soul (Phaedrus, section 246). Likewise, Aristotle referred to a rational and irrational soul (Politics, Book 7, part 14). And what word did Plato and Aristotle use to describe the ego? Answer: they used the word ego. Ego is the Greek word for I, just like it is in Latin. The difference between the Greek and Latin definition of ego is the subtle, suffice to say, in Ancient Greek philosophies, the concept of the ego has a close connection to Freudian psychology.
German: Das Uber ich Latin: Superego English: The Over-I
Rational soul (Superior)
German: Das es Latin: Id English: The It
Irrational soul (Inferior)
German: Das ich Latin: Ego English: The I
Ego The individual
Ego Metaphorically presented as a charioteer
Claimed men have more refined superegos than women
Claimed men have more rational soul than women
Supported the concept of spiritual equality across genders
Above: Summary and comparison of Freud’s, Aristotle’s, and Plato’s division of the psyche (soul)
Can anyone else see plagiarism? Or is it fairer to say that Freud *only* appropriated the Greeks? Either way, why doesn’t contemporary psychology openly acknowledge where Freud got his ideas from? This enigma of Freudian popularity and giving him acclaim for so-called original thoughts confuses me more than the concept of the ego itself.
‘Of the nature of the soul, though her true form be ever a theme of large and more than mortal discourse, let me speak briefly, and in a figure. … the human charioteer drives his [soul] in a pair; and one of them is noble and of noble breed, and the other is ignoble and of ignoble breed; and the driving of them of necessity gives a great deal of trouble’
~ Plato, C.370BCE, Phaedrus, section 246)
‘Now the soul of man is divided into two parts, one of which has a rational principle in itself, and the other, not having a rational principle in itself, is able to obey such a [rational] principle’
~ Aristotle, c.350BCE, Politics, Book 7, part 14
Freud’s appropriations of Ancient philosophies puts a negative spin on the word ego that is not necessarily consistent with ideologies that were presented in antiquity. The precise nature of the ego, and the soul in general, differs depending upon whomever’s writings you favour, for example Plato, Aristotle, or other. As a general rule, Freud appears to have plagiarised more from Aristotle, as is notable by both claiming that men have more superego or rational soul than women (more about this misogyny another time).
Freudian ideas dominated psychological and cultural realms for the better half of the twentieth century. (Ironically this came about no sooner than Aristotles’ philosophies had finally fallen out of favour amongst academics, see Is Aristotle Overrated?) Given this background, there is something quite significant about Skyhooks challenging the psychological conventions of the twentieth century that promoted the idea that the ego was something negative and dirty.
Clearly and concisely, Skyhooks declared that the ego is not a bad thing. With flair and provado they sang “if you had no ego you might not care the way you dressed” or “if you did not have an ego you’d just be like the rest”. In the contexts of these lyrics, the suggested is clear: egotism, that is confidence in one’s sense of self and the expression of individuality can be a positive trait. Further, the song is deliberately controversial with references to the egos of Jesus and Nixon.
Nuances surrounding the concept of ego reminds me of what Plato said about the nature of the soul; that being that the nature of the soul was the most debated topic amongst philosophers (i.e., the soul’s true form is a theme of discourse; Freud didn’t appropriate this remark). Hence, given that the ego is an aspect of the soul (or in psychology terminology, the psyche, which of course is Greek for soul) it stands to reason that there are multiple views about the nature of the ego. Today’s psychological research is a lot more informed than in Freud’s, nonetheless, there is still much to learn.
In conclusion, it amuses me how an art form like music can transport ideas and provoke deeper thinking.