With the recent world events and especially events in our neighbour to the south and the second election of Donald J Trump as president, I was inspired to reread a book we have up on the shelf, Jung on Evil, selected works of Carl Jung on the subject of evil, selected and introduced by Murray Stein. My initial assessment of the dark possibilities that were contained in the first Trump administration have, regrettably starting to be born out as his second term is poised to begin.
One of the pieces in the collection is, “The fight with the
shadow.” I was very taken with how
relevant it is for the current circumstances in the world political situation,
especially the situation in the United States under President Donald J.
Trump. The article is a broadcast talk
in the B.B.C., Third Programme on November 3, 1946. As such it was a commentary on the events of
Hitler’s rise to power in pre-WW2 Germany which, of course, led to the terrible
events of the war. The cessation of WW2 conflict
had occurred in the previous year.
First let me give a brief description of the shadow in
Jungian psychology. The shadow is an
archetype (or organization of energy common to all people) within the human
psyche. The shadow contains those
aspects of the person, usually negative, which are unacknowledged by the
individual. They can be aspects or
characteristics which have never come to consciousness in the individual or
have been consciously rejected by the person.
The overriding characteristics of the shadow is that they are not
something which the ego wants in any way to acknowledge as part of the psyche of
the person.
In the article it is interesting that, despite the title,
Jung does not directly address the concept of the shadow in Hitler or Pre-war
Germany. However, he does speak of the
power of the unconscious negative energy to affect people individually and
collectively. It is, of course, the
collective impact, that Jung is primarily concerned with, in addressing the
collective psychosis of the German people that led to Hitler coming to power
and the global conflict that followed.
Jung holds, quite rightly, that “the psychology of the
masses is rooted in the psychology of the individual” (174). Jung’s primary,
but not exclusive method of exploring the content of the unconscious in an
individual is through dreams. He notes
that he “noticed peculiar disturbances in the unconscious of my German patients
which could not be ascribed to their personal psychology” (175). He further elucidates that non-personal
manifestations will occur in collective culture of a people in such things as
fairy tales, legends, and mythologies which he has named the archetypes. He
advises that, “There was a disturbance of the collective unconscious in every
single one of my German patients” (175).
Jung is concerned with the collective impact on the German
people. However, he expounds that unconscious
events were by no means a solely German phenomenon in the events of WW2. He does propose that the German people are
more susceptible to such developments due to “the marked proneness of the
Germans to mass psychology” (175). Although
Jung maintains that the individual is the prime vehicle for the expression of
the unconscious energy, he confirms that this becomes truly dangerous when
individuals become a group, “I was fully aware of the immense dangers involved
when such people crowd together” (175).
The people that Jung is referring to are those in which the “powers of
darkness” i.e. the negative content of the unconscious have become active in
the psyche. Jung had been aware of this
collective manifestation after WW1, “the tide that rose in the unconscious
after the First World War was reflected in the individual dreams, in the forms
of collective mythological logical symbols which expressed primitively,
violence, cruelty: in short, all the powers of darkness” (175). He goes on to propose that when these dark
symbols manifest in a significant number of individuals they act as a magnet to
draw the people together into mass movements. There is, as was seen in Germany leading
up to WW2, “immense dangers when such people crowd together” (175).
The uprising of these archetypal energies from the
unconscious is released and the individual is unable to consciously deal with
them. When this occurs in Jung’s theory,
there is a compensating drive by the “archetypes of order.” However, people are usually unable to
incorporate this energy. Jung declares
that “the vast majority are incapable of integrating the forces of order”
(176). There is a battle between these
two opposing forces which have the dangerous probability of violence breaking
out. As Jung declares, “We see the first
symptoms everywhere: totalitarianism and State slavery. The value and importance of the individual
are rapidly decreasing and the chances of his being heard will vanish more and
more” (176).
Jung posits that this led in Germany to the individual
feeling out of control and powerless in the face of the increasing appearance
of chaos. This was responded to in an outbreak of a demand for power:
The individual’s feeling of weakness, indeed of
non-existence, was compensated by the eruption of hitherto unknown desirers for
power. It was a revolt of the powerless,
the insatiable greed of the have-nots. (177)
Into this maelstrom of competing energy came Hitler who
proclaimed a “new order”. This was the
convergence made in Hell rather than heaven.
As Jung notes, “The Germans wanted order, but they made the fatal
mistake of choosing the principal victim of disorder and unchecked greed for
their leader” (178).
Jung’s description of Hitler is decidedly apt for our
purposes in examining the situation of the soon-to be “Leader of the Free World” who will head the government
of the United States:
He was utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible,
psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with a
keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe.
He represented the shadow, or inferior part of everyone’s personality,
in an overwhelming degree, and this reason why they fell for him. (178)
Jung proposes in the companion article, “after the catastrophe,” which appears in the same collection,
that Hitler can be diagnosed with the condition of “pseudologia phantastica”,
which he describes as:
that form of hysteria which is characterized by a
peculiar talent for believing one’s own lies”…A sorry lack of education,
conceit that borders on madness, a very mediocre intelligence combined with the
hysterics cunning and the power of fantasies of an adolescent, were written all
over the demagogue’s face. His
gesticulations were all put on, devised by an hysterical mind intent only on
making an impression. He behaved in
public like a man living in his own biography, in this case as the sombre, daemonic
“man of iron” of popular fiction, the ideal of an infantile public whose
knowledge of the world is derived from the deified heroes of trashy films. (188)
I have quoted Jung’s analysis of Hitler at length as it is
so apt for our discussion of President Trump and the conditions in the United
States that brought him to power. I want
to be clear that at this point there no comparison between the action of Hitler
and the actions of Trump at this point.
Trump is constrained by the democratic institutions that exist in the
United States and to a certain extent in the world. However,
the similarities between Jung’s description of Hitler and of Trump and the
conditions in pre-war Germany and pre-election United States are striking.
Let me start with what strikes me as the dominate trait on
Donald Trump. He could be described with
the soubrette of ‘Father of Lies’ which is sometimes given to the devil. Trump appears to be vying with the devil for
this title. He has been shown to lie
constantly as if it is beyond his control.
CNN noted, “For the third consecutive presidential election, the Republican
presidential nominee is running a relentlessly dishonest campaign for the
world’s most powerful office.” https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/01/politics/analysis-donald-trumps-campaign-of-relentless-lying/index.html.
There has been speculation that he
actually does believe the lies that he spouts uncontrollably. Here we have the primary condition for the
definition of Jung’s diagnosis of pseudologia phantastica i.e., peculiar talent
for believing one’s own lies.
Now, what about the other vivid, perhaps even lurid
description of the character of Hitler that Jung proposes? Let us examine to what extent they apply to
Donald Trump:
·
utterly
incapable, unadapted
As Trump was, and apparently continues to
be despite his so-called ‘blind trust’, a successful businessman can he be
considered to the incapable? There is
the assessment that Trump’s business success is not as great as it appears to be. However, he is successful by most standards
today, having accumulated great wealth through his business endeavours. His capability as the President of the
United States is certainly in question.
His first term as President proved that he was less than capable of
putting together an effective team around himself and led to a revolving door
for the Executive Branch of the United States Government. His nominations for cabinet positions in his
second term have proven to be similarly headed for chaos.
Trump has continually shown himself to be
irresponsible in the statements he makes on social media primarily through X,
formerly Twitter. He “shoots from the
lip” in a seemingly uncontrolled, impulsive manner with no concern for the
truth or the consequences of the musing e.g. his declaration on X that he plans
to impose a 25% tariffs
on all products coming into the U.S. from Mexico and Canada as one of his first
acts back in the White House. Trump
demands that the two countries stop illegal immigrants and fentanyl entering the U.S. He seems to have no concern regarding the
disastrous effects this would have on
the U.S. economy.
In the matter of psychopathology, I am not qualified to make such a clinical diagnosis of Trump. However, let us look at one definition of a psychopath and see if it fits:
symptoms of psychopathy include: lack of a conscience
or sense of guilt, lack of empathy, egocentricity, pathological lying,
repeated violations of social norms, disregard for the law, shallow emotions,
and a history of victimizing others.[1]
Trump does appear to generally fit this
definition. He does what he pleases
without concern for the effect on others.
He recently seemed to be moved by the plight of child victims of
chemical attacks on Syria. His response
to this has been without apparent thought to the long-term consequences. However, he has notable lack empathy for
those he considers against him and vindictiveness for those who have not have
treated him with the respect and adulation he believes he deserves. This reflects his overriding egocentricity in
which he presents himself as the best at everything he does and is. I have already addressed his tendency to
lie. The violation of social norms may
be open to debate but he seems to live by his own rules as his operating in his
first term as if the norms of the presidency did not apply to him e.g.
maintaining ownership of his business empire with the faux blind trust; the
refusal to release his tax returns; the outrageous nepotism of close family
members in official and quasi-official position in his administration; the
approval of official White House endorsement of his daughters business
endeavours. He victimized others in his business dealing e.g. the students of
Trump University which were sold a pig in a poke regarding their education and
job prospects.
full of empty, infantile fantasies
Trump has consistently fed his fantasies to
a gullible public who bought them hook line and sinker e.g. building a wall to
keep out Mexican immigrants and making Mexico pay for it; locking up “lying
Hillary” (with an apparent unawareness of the irony, after becoming President;
immediately repealing and replacing Obamacare with “something terrific” the
first attempt to have it repealed failed dramatically with something that, by
any assessment, was certainly less that terrific; his admiration for and
perhaps envy of the totalitarian powers of Vladimir Putin; Global warming being
a plot by China; and most recently the tariffs being paid for by the foreign
producers of the goods rather than the American consumer.
Trump certainly has been acknowledged to have
a genius for reading his audience and the mood of his followers and the public
in general. This has been the key to his
success. In the crowds at his rallies he
has consistently intuitively know what tone to strike with outrageous
declarations about the lying press; Mexico sending the United States its
rapists and murderers; lying Hillary; draining the swamp of Capitol Hill, illegal
immigrants in Springfield eating the cats and dogs of residents, and on and on
and on.
I believe this has established the appropriateness of applying
Jung’s analysis of Hitler to Trump. If
their still remains some doubt in some reader’s minds I will add a few
references to his gesticulations during his public performances which certainly
appear to be put on for effect. He does
not appear to have been educated effectively, with there being questions about
his ability to read and write coherently with reports of others actually doing his
on-going and never ceasing X posts for him.
Here is the iron man of fiction who is the self-proclaimed only one who
can save the nation from the chaos that is threatening it from the inside and
the outside—If not superman, he is certainly Mighty Mouse who has “come to save
the day”, although he certainly would not ever style himself a mouse of any
kind regardless of its abilities.
With this assessment of Trump, what then of the people of
the United States who re-elected him president as the people of German enabled
Hitler to gain power? What dark forces
lie in the collective psyche of the American people? Jung proposes that he, “noticed particular
disturbances in the unconscious of my German patients” (174). Was there a similar disturbance in a
significant number of American people? Unfortunately,
I have no access to such data or access to the dreams of Americans. There is certainly evidence of a mass
movement as people were drawn together as if by a magnetic force as the came in
droves to the rallies held by the Trump campaign in the election. The response by the assembled crowds
certainly had more than a tinge of hysteria as Trump urged them to violently
throw out anyone who dared oppose him.
There was also the odour of a Roman circus with the media substituting
for Christians in the spectacle. On the
other hand, there are also the two assassination attempts in response to
him.
Jung declares that, “The individual’s feeling of weakness,
indeed of non-existence, compensated by the eruption of hitherto unknown
desires for power. It was the revolt of the powerless, the insatiable greed of
the have-nots” (177). Trumps attraction
to the disaffected middle class who have lost their manufacturing and other blue-collar
jobs has certainly been affirmed if not completely quantified. The further divisions between those with a
high school diploma and a four-year college degree and those affected
negatively by inflation certainly mirror that assessment by Jung.
The lack of a voice in the seats of power have reflected the
sense of powerlessness and affirms Trump’s claim that he would “drain the
swamp” in Washington. These are people
who have been left behind by developments in the economy and the major loss of
manufacturing jobs in the United States due to outsourcing and robotics. I do not agree that these people have an
“insatiable greed’ despite being what could be described as being
have-nots. They are, more accurately,
people who have been deprived, through no fault of their own, of a secure
existence in society where their basic needs are met and where the expectations
that their children would have a future that was on par or better they had come
to expect. Undoubtedly, they felt
powerless as they, in reality, are.
If there are many people in these blue-collar classes that
feel powerless is there anything in the American people collectively that
reflects a feeling of powerlessness? It
seems perhaps ridiculous to think that the most powerful nation on earth would
feel powerless. However, it is this very
power that the sense of powerlessness stares back at us. The sense of exceptionalism, of being perhaps
God’s new chosen people, which contains the seeds of fear that informs the need
to build walls and armies and missile systems to defend themselves against
those that would attack their very exceptionalism. What is at work here, according to Jung, is a
natural process aimed at establishing or maintaining balance within the
psyche. Jung insightfully addresses this process of compensation in the
individual, “The world-wide confusion and disorder reflect a similar condition
in the mind of the individual, but this lack of orientation is compensated in
the unconscious by archetypes of order” (176).
This is just as true for the collective people. This desire for protection against the
threats, perceived and real, from outside means that they put their trust in
the concrete security of collective defense.
Individually the increasing obsession with personal protection through
the ever more outrageous interpretation of the Second Amendment to the
Constitution compensates for their personal fear and dread of outside threats
to their personal safety.
This collective powerlessness was crystalized in the events
of 9-11. The fact that this event can be
symbolized by these two numbers connotes its archetypal nature for the United
States and consequently for the world. A
new world order has resulted from this act which, although it resulted in a
significant number of deaths pales in comparison to the lives that are lost in
other non-external ways e.g. in 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans
in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This was approximately
ten times the number of lives lost in the 9-11 attacks as reported by The Law
Center to Prevent Gun Violence[2]. The
fact this event was from the outside the U.S. and not from within gave it the
power to transform the nation and the world.
In contrast look at the Oklahoma bombing which was also devastating but
had relatively little impact on the psyche of the American people. It was perpetrated by one of their own people
rather than dark skinned Arabs from another country—not Iraq which the United
States attacked but their ally Saudi Arabia, an inconvenience that was quickly
overlooked in the mass hysteria that followed.
This analysis of the current state of the collective psyche
of the American people (it is tempting to call it psychosis) does not leave us
with much hope for the near future in any case.
Jung notes the danger in not facing the internal (either personal or
collective) forces that arise, “Anything that disappears from your psychological
inventory is apt to turn up in the guise of a hostile neighbour” (179).
Jung’s assessment of post-WW2 Germany and the German people
also paints a seriously doubtful picture for the future of the United States:
If you compare the present state of the mind of
Germans with my argument you will appreciate the enormous task with which the
world is confronted. We can hardly
expect the demoralized German masses to realize the importance of such
psychological truths, no matter how simple.
But the great Western democracies have a better chance, so long as they
can keep out of those wars that always tempt them to believe in external
enemies and the desirability of internal peace. (179)
The American people certainly seem to be demoralized, if not
to the extent of post-war Germany. In addition,
the Western democracies have given no indication of the ability to avoid wars,
especially recently. However, there is
hope in the fact that Germany did rise from the ashes of the post war era to
become a marker of hope for as one of the leading Western Democracies in which
Jung placed his hope. It has joined with
other European countries to been a shining beacon of hope in the current Ukrainian
war with Russia. However, even the great
expression of humanity expressed by Germany is being threatened by similar
forces from the far right which I believe can be accurately called the Shadow
of Trumpism given that the support for Ukraine under the new Trump presidency
is definitely uncertain. We can only
hope (and yes even pray) that there will be a similar compensating force that
will eventually lead to a new world order which is not grounded in fear but
rather is grounded in hope.
