The following article shall serve as an explication of the starting points for my area of inquiry as well as an exercise in understanding how the social construction of knowledge has influenced my own views and those espoused within the depth psychological body of knowledge of which I am a participant. While my research topic is not yet something that I can definitively state, I will attempt to clarify it throughout this paper. I am primarily concerned with using depth psychological tools both Modern and Post Modern to contribute to the dialogue on field theory as detailed by Rupert Sheldrake (1987), Ervin Laszlo (2008) and others. Carl Jung’s hypothesis of the collective unconscious fits remarkably well with biological field theory (Sheldrake) and Akashic field theory (Laszlo), it is also agreeable with ideas of place and mind that occur in ecological philosophies and psychologies. Further, I hope by situating depth psychology within field theory I will be able to demonstrate that is not a mere cultural artifact and that it can be useful to transpersonal theory, ecopsychology, and ecosophy.
I will attempt to briefly outline how my own experience has led me to use a depth psychological lens for getting at the world and how my experience colors my attitudes towards my research interests. During my childhood, I was thoroughly captivated with the spiritual aspects of life though I had no ongoing formal exposure to religion or any particular tradition. My family was loosely Christian though my father’s spirituality is likely more influenced by his time spent in nature that in a church, and my mother’s spirituality is largely self derived from the beliefs passed on to her by her own mother. I went to a Christian school for the first three years of my education only because my parents were worried about the safety of the public schools in our neighborhood. When the school shut down on allegations of an abusive nun and a successive loss of funding I entered public school and rarely set foot in a church again.
Regardless of the lack of direct religious orientation in my family, spirituality always seemed to be the focal point of my life. In my teens, I was influenced by the transcendental philosophy of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau which led to my exposure of Hindu and Buddhist spiritual traditions. I devoured several Hindu holy texts and became an avid reader of Alan Watts. I was an excessively spiritual youth, preferring an introverted lifestyle to socialization with my peers. My continued exposure to various religious traditions eventually led me to question the objective reality of any tradition on account of the numerous disconnections and contradictions that occur within particular traditions and that are amplified when two or more traditions are put side by side.
When I entered college, I began studying philosophy and religion as a way of continuing the line of questioning that seemed to be inborn to me. While as a child I felt a warm comfort in religion, my days as a philosophy student and the events leading up to and following the September 11th attacks led me to have an extreme distrust of religions of any sort. My studies brought me into contact with existential philosophy and I almost immediately became a die hard existentialist. Freedom and responsibility became my buzzwords and they crept into every aspect of my thought. I disavowed religion in any shape or form believing it to be a flight of fancy taken by irresponsible actors. Looking back on my development, I can easily note that while I had thought myself to be a progressive, responsible, and free thinker, I was really only functioning within the lived illusion of American values. My education in philosophy ensured that I was primarily concerned with three qualities of American technicism, as put by Stewart and Bennet (1991, p.63) “human beings are responsible for setting their own directions in the world, clarity is preferable to ambiguity, and contemplation should lead to action.”
During my last year of undergrad work I took a course in American Pragmatism focused heavily on the philosophy of William James. James’ brilliant work fanned the flames of spirituality that were smoldering under the weight of existential responsibility and eventually caused me to begin investigating spiritual movements once again though from a particularly hard headed, overly analytical position. This led me into a graduate program that focused on two disciplines, mythology and depth psychology.
Upon entering the program, I was very critical of the sometimes lofty concepts used by depth psychologists. By this point, I was firmly entrenched in the logical, factual, philosophical approach I had engendered as an undergrad. I nearly dropped out of the program because it did not seem to espouse what I had come to understand as academic and rational rigor. Though I did not have words for it at the time what had truly happened at this point in my life was an encounter between the “control” orientation of my previous education and the more integrative approach taken by depth psychology (Slater, 2009). I formed a hard shell and tried to crush depth psychology by constantly critiquing what ever I studied. Seeming detached concepts such as archetype, persona, individuation and the like evoked my natural skepticism. These things had not grounding in scientific reality as I saw it and as such deserved little further consideration. Yet over time as I began to recognize these forces at play in my own life and the mythologies of old my skepticism was slowly transformed into an enthusiasm for these knew conceptual tools.
Depth psychology granted me perspective that that I had never had prior to my initial encounters with it. I had always assumed a typically dualistic either/or view of the world. I believed that either transpersonal spirituality had to be true or rationalistic philosophy had to me true. Depth psychology’s concept of the archetypal unconscious and the individual ego consciousness allowed me to hold each of these views in dynamic tension. By assuming a collective unconscious that is constantly influencing our daily lives I was able to recognize that we as individuals are not entirely responsible for our lives and that though we are responsible for our conscious choices there is a great deal that will always lay outside the realms of perception. I believe that the union of opposites that stems from depth psychological thinking is an excellent foundation for further work in fields related to spirituality, philosophy, and ecology.
The Notion of Progress in Depth Psychology
In the following sections, I shall attempt to make clear some of the limitations of depth psychology that stem from what are primarily Western cultural assumptions and views. The Jungian concept of individuation is a progress based theory of the human psyche that combines both a linear path and cyclical wheel of alienation and inflation to form a psychic teleos that causes an individual to progress from towards a state of Self actualization (Edinger, 1972). Pathology is general evidence that the teleos of the psyche can be refused, but it is generally thought to be the case that pathologies are actually part of the call towards growth (Hillman, 1998). Jung’s Depth Psychology is a progress based approach to reality. It assumes a path of individuation, a progression of conscious awakenings that lead to a profound connection with the central archetype or the Self. The first step of Jungian psychology is oriented towards bringing ones shadow qualities to consciousness, integrating them, and becoming a more total person on account of such integrations (Von Franz, 1964).
Jung asserts that it is “true that much of the evil in the world is due to the fact that man in general is hopelessly unconscious, as it is also true that with increasing insight we can combat this evil at its source within ourselves” (1950, p.205). Jung believed that it was a moral imperative to discover our own unconscious drives in order to change and improve ourselves and the world. Stewart and Bennett make it clear that the “belief in human perfectibility and progress” (1991, p.114) is a notion that is deeply rooted in Western culture. They perfectly summarize Jung’s belief when they say, “human beings can change and improve, and it is their duty to do so. The implied agent…is transformed by experience into a rational manipulator and controller of the environment” (1991, p.114).
Traditional Jungian psychology asserts that the process of individuation occurs through a relationship to the archetypes of the Shadow and the anima/animus. Jungians maintain that one must develop a relationship to the anima/animus or “soul image” that lies within the unconscious. This archetypal structure is a constellation of all our experience within the masculine and feminine archetypes within our lives. All of our conceptions about the intimate others we encounter in our lives lie hidden in our relationship with this archetypal force. Until we make our unconscious assumptions about anima/animus clear then we will only have relationships with our projections upon other people instead of the people themselves (von Franz, 1964).
After attaining an awakened anima/animus relationship a connection called the ego-Self axis will form that brings the individual consciousness into relationship with the larger sphere of the transpersonal unconscious (Edinger, 1972). This appears to be a universal fact as Jung illustrates this theory with an abundance of of evidence from myths and fairy tales that involve the defeat or integration of a shadow figure followed by a union of with the anima/animus figure. My position as a Westerner has further encouraged this assumption because of my own experience of development through these apparently archetypal forces. Jung states that, “The shadow can be realized only through a relation of a partner, and anima and animus only through relation to a partner of the opposite sex, because only in such a relation do their projections become operative” (1976, p.161). The notion that one can only realize the anima or animus images through relationship with a member of the opposite sex could be criticized as one that firmly locates Jung in his time.
Japanese depth psychologist, Hayao Kawaii (2008), provides several critiques of Jung, especially the notion of individuation through the anima/animus by citing Japanese psychological patterns and literature. He skillfully demonstrates that the Japanese tend to individuate through the archetypes of the teacher and innocent rather that the anima/animus. Kawai states that it “seems to be significant for understanding the Japanese-Chinese type of psyche, in which the senex-puer archetype is of greater importance than the male-female relationship.” (2008, p. 67). This obviously infringes upon the universality of the individuation patterns as laid out by Jung. The location of depth psychology within a primarily upper class Western cultural lens has served to inhibit its ability to provide adequate understanding of other cultural patterns.
Further, Jungians tend to imply the existence of a structure/function (Sztompka) dichotomy within the psyche by providing an “archetypal anatomy” of the psyche that helps to determine the growth and development of an individual or society. The objectification of conceptual realities finds root within Western intellectual traditions, while Eastern traditions are more concerned with perceived realities rather than conceptual ones (Stewart and Bennet, 1991). Stewart and Bennet critique the Western approach as “drawing inductively on a perceptual world of objective things and events, [while] construct[ing] a moderately abstract functional reality rather than a concrete perceptual one” (1991, p. 29). Jung claims to have developed his psychological theory as he worked with multitudes of patients and their dream material. From these therapeutic sessions, and Jung’s own self therapy and study of alchemy, he was able to posit the existence of a collective unconscious that contains archetypes that are fundamental of all human experience. For Jung, this is a factual reality grounded in empirical science though his usage may not stand up to the scientific standards of today.
Often times, modern incarnations of depth psychology are colored with an existential or humanistic approach. Some depth psychologists are very critical of this, while others seem to encourage it as a less abstract and more subjective approach to the human endeavor (Hollis, 1995). While I tend to favor a more existential depth psychology that emphasizes personal action and responsibility in the face of unconscious forces, this approach has its foundations in American social custom and may not be applicable cross-culturally. Stewart and Bennet (1991) summarize this attitude in the following passage,
Actions and hard work will bring about what the individual wants; hence, Americans are described as having the attribute of effort-optimism. Through effort one will achieve one’s ambitions. No goal is too remote, no obstacle too difficult for the individual who has the determination to expend the effort. Hard work is rewarded by success. (p.75).
In a sense, this attitude underlays Jung’s original explication of the depth psychology on account and is evidenced in his belief that individuals are responsible for the process of their own individuations. And because the individuation of one individual influences the individuation of others, the individual becomes somewhat responsible for the process of growth that takes place in those around him or her.
Another area of difficulty in the current incarnations of Jungian psychology is the propensity for an over reliance on subjective, individually based experience. Jung took a scientific approach to the unconscious by formulating his views on top of evidence accumulated from sessions with individual patients as well as his own philosophical and cross cultural studies. Through these evaluations he arrived at the hypotheses of archetypal principles, projection, and individuation. While Jung emphasized subjective experience as a means of knowing, he also attempted to position that experience in a larger cultural context known as the cultural unconscious (Jung, 1971). This is something that has seemingly been lost because of the primarily western framing of depth psychology (Watkins, 1992).
The cultural unconscious is the interdependent web of connections that gives rise to our particular subjective modes of experiencing. While the archetypes may be patterns fundamental to biological life, our perceptions of them are always colored by our culturally based concepts (Watkins, 1992). This comes as no surprise in a time when we can use an internet resource to quickly survey cultural conceptions of “Mother” among several different groups. The deeper notions of mother as a giver of life and nurturing remain the same across cultures but the particular cultural incarnations take their own forms within given cultures. It is a popular misconception that Americans have no actual culture because the country is a conglomeration of various cultures and traditions. This idea encourages an individualistic view of the world because Americans tend to believe that they cannot locate themselves within their culture so they must derive their way of life from inner principles or a particular family culture (Stewart and Bennet, 1991). The rather obvious truth of this myth is that the culture itself informs this sort of subjective experiencing of the world.
This can be a particular problem in current depth psychology because individuals tend to over personalize their subjective needs and sufferings rather than recognizing their location within the patterns of their culture. Depth Psychologist and activist, Mary Watkins (1992), points out that these patterns of suffering and individual seeking are actually patterns that are nourished by trends in American culture. Due to American images of self reliance and inner subjectivity, the culture rarely notices that these notions are themselves cultural artifacts left over from the ideas of self-determination that sprung from the Enlightenment, the glorification of self expression and inner worth of the Romantic period, and the practical utilitarian positions of pragmatic philosophy (Watkins, 1992). Current psychotherapies encourage us to “listen deeply to that distillation of culture we have labeled ‘inner life’” (Watkins, 1992, p. 56). Watkins further states that, “our attempts to experience ourselves as self-determining, self-actualizing, and free, we blind ourselves to the forces that construct our notion of the self” (1992, p. 59).
Depth psychology is the product of theories generated in large part by affluent European and American men of Judeo-Christain background and because of this fact, it often looses touch with other cultural realities despite the belief of its proponents that it takes part in a universal reality (Watkins, 1999). During my two years of education at an institution grounded in depth psychology, only once was a reading assigned by a psychologist that did not fit the mold of an affluent white Westerner. Regardless of its appeals to a more fundamental archetypal reality that we all hold in common as members of the human community, depth psychology often fails to articulate the relationship between cultural contexts and individual suffering (Watkins, 1999).
Cause and Effect Reasoning
Another possible limitation of depth psychology is its reliance on explaining pathologies in terms of causal relationships. With the advent of the industrial age, a great deal of emphasis was placed upon the nuclear home as a sacred location where one could partition oneself off from the wider social world. Similarly, this little slice of subjective space was thought to be the originator of pathologies. This is evidenced by Sigmund Freud’s pioneering work of uncovering pathology by looking back in a patient’s history to a discover formative sexual experiences that led to a particular pathological manifestation (Ellenberger, 1970). While Jung rejected Freud’s emphasis of sexual trauma, he maintained that pathologies were the results of “complexes” that had formed because of past experiences of an archetypal force. Complexes are the concretization of archetypal concepts into a firmer reality. A complex forms around a particular experience and colors all other experience of a particular archetype from then on. One grows up located within a particular familial dynamic that leads to the formation of certain unconscious assumptions about the world. As one ages and distances oneself from the family, these unconscious assumptions or complexes, are still projected out into the world and thus inform our experience of it. A psychotherapist may attempt to cure a particular neurosis by locating the formation of a related complex sometime in the patient’s history and working to release the energy that is constellated around that particular event. It is hoped that through the loosening of the complex, a broader experience of reality in the present moment will be possible and thus the power of the pathology will lessen (Jung, 1971).
Mary Watkins (1991) enlarges the location of of initial causes by acknowledging that the nuclear family unit is not a sacred space separate from society but a cultural construct. Traumatic causes cannot be purely located within familial relationships because those very relationships are also informed by our cultural unconscious. As Watkins eloquently puts it, “To enlarge our interpretive frame, we need to see past the parents’ actions and behavior to the cultural myths of self and reality that not only shape but contort our experience” (1991, p. 56). Psychologists and patients must learn to work in such a way that they are able to give witness to the culture underlying the apparent subjective suffering of a situation. When suffering is contextualized within social constructs it informs the healing of the individual pathology as well as the social pathology that influenced its development.
The emphasis placed on discovering patterns of causation is itself a product of American cultural perceptions. The implied agent that serves as a linguistic function in statements such as “It is raining,” implies the existence of a distinct cause for every effect. The English language could not support the “rain” without the relationship to “it” (Stewart and Bennet, 1991). Similarly, the idea of causation that is common to many contemporary psychologies, not just depth psychology, assumes a a cause that can be isolated within a patient’s history that will explain current behavioral patterns. Causation can still be a useful tool if it is not placed upon the altar of objective reality, but instead acknowledged as the product of various levels interconnected levels of experience.
Structuring of the Psyche
The last limitation of depth psychology that I shall focus on is the tendency to structure the psyche according to so called empirical principles. This takes two primary forms, one is in efforts to provide a psychic anatomy in the form of archetypal structure, the other is found in developmental theories espoused by depth psychologists. Archetypes commonly referred to by depth psychologists have already been mentioned in the pages above, so there is no need to cover them again in this section. It is perhaps more pressing to acknowledge that while these structures could be a type of type of mind gene as Jung inferred from his work with patients and world cultures, it could just as easily be a purely cultural product manifested from the social contexts of Jung’s time and subjective frame.
Depth psychological developmental theory is derived from both clinical practice on the part of Jung and his successors, and on the patterns of development apparent within mythological and cultural resources. Jungians posit the development from a unitary reality in which one is not yet differentiated from his or her surroundings, to a magical reality where the child begins to see itself as a part of the world but still identifies with the god-like agency of the father and mother figures, to an eventual stage of of separation where the individual in question comes to recognize his position as a responsible actor in the world. Some persons will remain in infantile stages of development throughout life, never being quite able to achieve a position that allows them to see themselves as agents within the world but as members of a world is constantly acting upon them in ways that they cannot control (Whitmont, 1991).
According to depth psychologists, the initial stages of life should lead to the strengthening of the ego and the conceptualization of an individual self. One should not identify with ones social roles, or personas, and should instead develop a firm sense of an individual and responsible self. This again finds its place in Western thought through existential philosophies and enlightenment ethics. The opposite is known to be true in Eastern traditions where individuals identify through ascription, or the understanding of their being as being bound up in their social roles (Stewart and Bennet, 1991).
The dichotomy of westerners developing away from social identity roles and Easterners developing into those very same roles undermines the universality of depth psychological developmental theory. It provides evidence that the developmental theories are social constructions rather than objective facts. Developmental theory is better understood as a cultural norm for the interpretation of experience rather than something located within an archetypal unfolding of the human psyche (Watkins, 1992). Developmental theory serves to limit development to the brackets of a contextual construction more than it offers any new avenues for growth. As psychologists continue to commit themselves to the artifacts of their trade, they limit the potentials for expansion beyond it.
The Ecological Significance of Depth Psychology
After providing a firm critique of the depth psychology frame, I now hope to demonstrate why it is useful in participating in a shift from an individualistic psychology to an interdependent one. Despite its sometimes linear dynamics, depth psychology also provides a platform for interdependent causation within the psyche. While individuals are responsible for their own development, it is also understood that ones development is under the influence of innumerable unconscious factors that extend beyond the realms of personal control. The notions of the collective unconscious and the cultural unconscious take into account the fact that ones ego is not the sole determinant of ones life experience. Just as in Chinese thought, the forethought and planning of actions in advance may prove futile because of the shifting sands of underlying unconscious factors (Stewart and Bennet, 1991).
From the shifting sands of the unconscious emerge the possibility for a conception of the self that is not merely an individual construct but one that is enmeshed in various other factors resulting in an “ensembled individualism” (Watkins, 1992, p. 60). This notion would allow the boundaries between self, other, and society to become more permeable and less dependent on purely individualistic conceptions. While the notion of soul encountered within Western philosophy and religion is often understood as a unique quality of an individual that is to be perfected through spiritual discipline or grace, it is often reformed by contemporary depth psychologists such as James Hillman as something belonging to the world itself (Hillman, 1989). The soul or individual self, is not separate from nature, place, and world, but a product of it that connects us to all of these levels of reality. Thus the illusion of the mechanical division of reality proves false in light of contemporary depth psychological trends.
Hillman’s approach places the utmost importance on the anima mundi or the “soul of the world”. Hillman believes claims that soul is present in all levels of existence and not something that only humans are privy to (Hillman, 1989). There is as much soul in a place or a culture as there is within a particular individual. Hillman leads us in providing a new punctuation for our experience of the world. If the cultural trends begin to recognize the various incarnations of soulfulness in all levels of experience the world will suddenly become a place of renewed vitality. This will have an obvious impact on ecology and related philosophies or psychologies. The notion that there is soul present in the natural world may be a difficult one to accept for lack or apparent evidence but the uncanny propensity for self organization of natural systems and the emergence of stable environments certainly contributes to the idea that nature itself is a vital agency.
One of the greatest qualities of depth psychology is its adaptability to encompass and be encompassed by new paradigms. Hillman (1995) points out that since the recognition of an unconscious made its way into Western thought with Freud in the late 19th century all fields of knowledge become partially rational constructs and partially unconscious constructs. Even if one dismisses the notion of an archetypal unconscious as Jung posited, the notion of a cultural unconscious that encompasses all of the social elements that influence daily activity beyond the level of awareness cannot be denied. Hillman posits that this hub of unconsciousness extends beyond individual egos and cultures into the very world that we emerged from. Recognizing the delicate interplay between personal experience and the unconscious Hillman encourages us to look beyond our individual egos and into the world itself for the answers to our ailments. In his words, “Psychology, so dedicated to awakening human consciousness, needs to wake itself up to one of the most ancient human truths: we cannot be studied or cured apart from the planet” (Hillman, 1995, p. xxii). This new trend in depth psychology makes it a useful tool in the ongoing dialogue about the impacts we have on our environment and the impacts it has upon us. By denying that the psyche exists within the skull and recognizing that it extends beyond the border of skin a new view of psychology emerges, one in which the environment, social context, and a variety of other factors become obvious influences on our overall well being. Further, this notion takes us beyond the mechanism of enlightenment era science and dogmas into a world that dynamism is influenced both by our presence in the world and our interactions with it. An interactioanal system of person/community/environment is formed that makes it trivial to attempt to place dividers anywhere among the three factors.
The work of Dr. Stephen Aizenstat (1995) provides another glimpse into the emerging concept of the world unconscious. Aizenstat puts forth four innovations that depth psychology can offer the current global paradigms. First, depth psychology can contribute to an applied ecopsychological theory as illustrated in the work of Hillman above. Aizenstat also suggests that we enlarge our concept of the psychic self to include our natural environment. An eco-depth psychology would make clear the ineptitudes of ego-centered psychologies and create an eco-centered platform for psychological theory. Pathologies would no longer be results of individual unconscious processes but located within the larger sphere of more complex reality that acknowledges our environmental and cultural contexts as having a direct impact on our concepts and experiences of mental health.
Secondly, much like Hillman, Aizenstat (2005) advocates looking beyond mere human experience for the workings of the psyche. He too believes that psyche is found in the world and all of our interactions with it whether they are physical, spiritual, or cognitive. Aizenstat even goes so far as to give dreams their own weight as psychoid events that emerge from the world soul into the sphere of human and animal consciousness. This part of Aizenstat’s theory is not doubt derived from his work with the aborigines of Australia and their concept of dream time. It is plausible for the scientific minded to dismiss all accounts of meaning in dreams but the fact does remain that each and every dream and individual has is emergent from his or her own unconscious life. That being the case, the uniqueness of each dream should be taken into account when considering the importance of dream material and its connection to a deeper layer of experience that lays beyond our daily ego-centered perceptions.
Thirdly, Aizenstat (1995) recognizes that psychotherapy must be practiced in such a way that the ills of the world are taken into account as having effects on each individual patient. No longer can therapists rely on theories that attempt to mesh together causes and effects from a patient’s family history or other individual experience. Case histories have their usefulness but they, “exist within a framework that perpetuates the separation of person from world and that denies the essential importance of an individual’s surroundings” (Aizenstat, 1995, p. 99)
Lastly, depth psychology should seek to reconnect humanity with the natural rhythms of nature. As many ecotheorists contend, it may be our modern predication for seeing the world as a lifeless machine that exists solely to satisfy our needs and wants as a species that has led us into the current state of near global catastrophe that we face (Roszack, 1995, Drengson & Inoue, 1995). Depth psychological concepts such as the anima mundi and the collective unconscious serve to vitalize all that which is not human thus bringing humanity down from its perilous ego centered state of inflation to the level of the world. If we are able to re-cognize our deep connection to the natural world, it is probable that a revolution of consciousness will occur that may stave off humanity’s plight and perhaps even ensure a fruitful continuity of our species on this planet (Laszlo, 2008).
Field Theory’s Validation of Depth Psychology
The research of biologist Rupert Sheldrake (1987) suggests that natural laws are more like natural habits than objective facts. Sheldrake proposes that nature has a collective memory that influences future developments based on their similarities to prior incarnations. Thus archetypes are not a priori to the human mind but emergent patterns of human experience. Sheldrake’s research demonstrates that mental processes are more than just the complex interactions of material components of a given life form. He proposes that naturally occurring fields are actually largely responsible for cognitive functions. Sheldrake provides an allegory of a television set to illustrate this phenomenon. Just as a television is a piece of equipment that is able to filter out information from broadcasting signals and formulate them into a moving picture, our brain serves to filter our information from the field of mind that pervades us to present us with an experience of reality. The brain serves as a translator of the field of the mind that lays beyond our perception of it. Thus mental processes are not simply material processes but are influenced by the field of mind that the material processes interpret (Sheldrake, 1987). Consciousness is not limited to the perimeter of our direct sensory organs but extends beyond us into the natural world.
Sheldrake’s concept of a mental field relates well with depth psychological ideas such as the collective and cultural unconscious, and the world soul. A dialogue between depth psychologists and field theorists is likely to bring about a mutual validation of each discipline. Further, a combination of these two theoretical platforms could be applied to positive social change. Sheldrake demonstrates that as a given capacity is generated in an individual it also enters the collective field of mind. As individuals experience psychological realizations through depth psychology they will inherently affect the collective mental field thus generating further resources for similar transformation on a larger scale (Laszlo, 2008).
This work has been an exercise of deconstruction and reconstruction of views. The first section served as an overview of my own place within the context of my dissertation research. The second, an exposure of the sociological limitations of my body of knowledge. The third, an attempt to integrate these deconstructions with a hopeful outlook on future research. Further, I hope that this paper has demonstrated the continued utility of depth psychological theory in the coming decades, while accepting that some concepts are also limited to their particular incarnations in historical time.
A Psyche the Size of the Earth: A Psychological Forward. (1995). In J. Hillman (Author),
Ecopsychology Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind (pp. Xvii-Xxii). New York: Sierra Club Books.
Ellenberger, H. F. (1981). The Discovery of the Unconscious. New York: Basic Books.
Hillman, J. (1991). Blue fire selected writings. New York, NY: HarperPerennial.
A. Drengson, and Inoue, Y. (eds.) (1995). Deep ecology movement an introductory anthology. Berkeley, Calif: North Atlantic Books.
James., H. (1998). Suicide and the Soul. New York: Continuum International Group.
Jung, C. G. Portable Jung. New York: Penguin Books, 1971. Print.
Jungian Psychology and the World Unconscious. (1995). In S. Aizenstat (Author), Ecopsychology
Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind (pp. 92-100). New York: Sierra Club Books.
Kawai, Hayao. Buddhism and the Art of Psychotherapy. Texas A&M UP, 2008. Print.
Laszlo, Ervin. Quantum Shift in the Global Brain How the New Scientific Reality Can Change Us and Our World. Rochester: Inner Traditions, 2008. Print.
Phenomenology of the Self. (1976). In J. C. G. (Author), Portable Jung (pp. 139-162). New York: Penguin Books.
Roszak, Theodore. Ecopsychology Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind. New York: Sierra Club Books, 1995. Print.
Sheldrake, R. (1987). Mind, Memory, and Archetype Morphic Resonance and the Collective Unconscious. Psychological Perspectives, 18(1), 9-26.
Slater, Philip. The Chrysallis Effect: The Metamorphosis of Global Culture. Portland: Sussex Academic, 2009. Print.
Stewart, Edward C., and Milton J. Bennet. American cultural patterns a cross-cultural perspective. Yarmouth, Me., USA: Intercultural, 1991. Print.
The Modern Spiritual Problem. (1950). In J. C. G. (Author), Modern man in search of a soul. (pp. 196- 220). New York: Harcourt.
Von Franz, M. L. (1968). The Process of Individuation. In Man and His Symbols (pp. 158-254). New York: Dell.
Watkins, M. (1992). From Individualism to the Interdependent Self. Psychological Perspectives, 27, 52-69.
Watkins, M. (1999). Depth Psychology and the Liberation of Being. In Pathways into the Jungian World: Phenomenology and Analytical Psychology (pp. 215-233). New York: Routledge.
Whitmont, E. C. (1991). Symbolic quest basic concepts of analytical psychology. Princeton, N.J: Princeton UP.