Post-Jungian perspectives on archetypes of individuation in Aldous ...
Post-Jungian perspectives on archetypes of individuation in Aldous ...
Post-Jungian perspectives on archetypes of individuation in Aldous ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Post</str<strong>on</strong>g>-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>perspectives</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>archetypes</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>dividuati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Aldous</strong> Huxley’s Brave new world and<br />
Island<br />
Maria de Fátima de Castro Bessa<br />
Abstract:<br />
The <strong>archetypes</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividuati<strong>on</strong>, as proposed by C. G. Jung,<br />
have been challenged by post-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g> writers. Pers<strong>on</strong>a, shadow,<br />
anima and self <strong>of</strong>fer examples <strong>of</strong> these new approaches, and<br />
their use <strong>in</strong> the analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>Aldous</strong> Huxley’s Brave New World<br />
and Island highlight some cultural aspects <strong>of</strong> the novels.<br />
Keywords: <strong>archetypes</strong>, <strong>in</strong>dividuati<strong>on</strong>, Jung, post-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
C. G. Jung’s classical view <strong>of</strong> the process <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividuati<strong>on</strong> sees it as a process <strong>of</strong><br />
maturati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>ality “through which a pers<strong>on</strong> becomes a psychological ‘<strong>in</strong>dividual,’<br />
that is, a separate, <strong>in</strong>divisible unity” (Archetypes 275). Dur<strong>in</strong>g this process,<br />
the <strong>in</strong>dividual is exposed to material stemm<strong>in</strong>g from the unc<strong>on</strong>scious, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
pers<strong>on</strong>a, the shadow, the c<strong>on</strong>trasexual archetype, the wise old man or the wise old<br />
woman, and the self. The task <strong>in</strong>volves <strong>in</strong>tegrat<strong>in</strong>g each <strong>of</strong> these <strong>archetypes</strong> as far as<br />
possible. In the process <strong>of</strong> deal<strong>in</strong>g with the material that comes from the unc<strong>on</strong>scious<br />
and br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g it to light the <strong>in</strong>dividual ga<strong>in</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>sciousness, and the prize at the end <strong>of</strong><br />
this process is <strong>in</strong>dividuati<strong>on</strong>. The exam<strong>in</strong>ati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the way that post-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g> theorists<br />
have dealt with the shadow, the anima, and the self <strong>archetypes</strong> and some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
changes that they have proposed can illum<strong>in</strong>ate certa<strong>in</strong> aspects <strong>of</strong> Brave New World<br />
and Island.<br />
The term post-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g> was first used by Andrew Samuels “<strong>in</strong> preference to<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g> to <strong>in</strong>dicate both c<strong>on</strong>nectedness and distance” from Jung (<str<strong>on</strong>g>Post</str<strong>on</strong>g>-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g>s 19).<br />
The expressi<strong>on</strong> presents a certa<strong>in</strong> tensi<strong>on</strong> as to what exactly it means to be <str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g>,<br />
and Samuels expla<strong>in</strong>s that this tensi<strong>on</strong> may derive from the very fact that for Jung<br />
there was <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g> – himself. With this comment, Jung was, <strong>on</strong> the <strong>on</strong>e hand,<br />
try<strong>in</strong>g to avoid “Freud’s excesses <strong>of</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ical authority” (2), and <strong>on</strong> the other,<br />
emphasiz<strong>in</strong>g the importance <strong>of</strong> each <strong>in</strong>dividual’s com<strong>in</strong>g to terms with his theories and<br />
decid<strong>in</strong>g how far a <str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g> he would like to be.<br />
The new l<strong>in</strong>es <strong>of</strong> work and thought developed by post-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g>s have <strong>in</strong>fluenced<br />
the way that the <strong>archetypes</strong> c<strong>on</strong>nected with the process <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividuati<strong>on</strong> are seen<br />
today. In general, there have been three post-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g> approaches to <strong>archetypes</strong>,
namely, they have been basically ignored, expanded towards new and unexpected<br />
ways, or largely reformulated. The pers<strong>on</strong>a, the anima, and the self <strong>of</strong>fer examples <strong>of</strong><br />
these new approaches, and they can be used <strong>in</strong> the analysis <strong>of</strong> Brave New World and<br />
Island.<br />
The pers<strong>on</strong>a is an archetype <strong>of</strong> adaptati<strong>on</strong>, and the term is c<strong>on</strong>nected with the<br />
effort made by the <strong>in</strong>dividual towards adapt<strong>in</strong>g to the outside world and its demands.<br />
Pers<strong>on</strong>a is the face that you show to society, and it is but a mask that hides your true<br />
nature. The first task <strong>in</strong> the process <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividuati<strong>on</strong> is to have a clearer percepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
this mask. This poses a challenge for the <strong>in</strong>dividual because <strong>of</strong> the danger <strong>of</strong><br />
identify<strong>in</strong>g with it so closely that the pers<strong>on</strong> loses sight <strong>of</strong> who he is as an <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
and becomes the social mask that he wears to adapt to society. This danger is<br />
menti<strong>on</strong>ed by George H. Jensen, who says that the pers<strong>on</strong>a’s power “comes from its<br />
ability to erase the shortcom<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> the self, at least temporarily, as the <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
becomes absorbed <strong>in</strong>to the social role” (12). Dur<strong>in</strong>g the process <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividuati<strong>on</strong>, it is<br />
necessary to become aware <strong>of</strong> the price that is be<strong>in</strong>g paid by the <strong>in</strong>dividual to feel safe<br />
with<strong>in</strong> the social fold. This danger becomes clear when we analyse some the<br />
characteristics <strong>of</strong> Brave New World and Island.<br />
The pers<strong>on</strong>a <strong>in</strong> Brave New World is wholly determ<strong>in</strong>ed by the k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong> society and<br />
the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> its citizens that make each pers<strong>on</strong> feel happy about his or her<br />
physical appearance, tastes, desires, positi<strong>on</strong>, c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>, and dreams. In Island,<br />
society plays a decisive role <strong>in</strong> determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g what k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong> pers<strong>on</strong> each <strong>in</strong>habitant <strong>of</strong> Pala<br />
may aspire to be, but there is plenty <strong>of</strong> room for <strong>in</strong>dividual discovery and pers<strong>on</strong>al<br />
choices. When the two outsiders, John Savage and Will Farnaby, come to live am<strong>on</strong>gst<br />
the local populati<strong>on</strong>, they have different experiences. In Brave New World, John is<br />
pushed towards giv<strong>in</strong>g up his idiosyncrasies and c<strong>on</strong>form<strong>in</strong>g, whereas <strong>in</strong> Island Will is<br />
encouraged to c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>t his mask and discover what lies beh<strong>in</strong>d it. L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong> has a<br />
totalitarian and centraliz<strong>in</strong>g government that aims to c<strong>on</strong>trol the lives <strong>of</strong> its citizens,<br />
whereas Pala is a democratic society whose every member has the right to f<strong>in</strong>d ways<br />
towards a happy and mean<strong>in</strong>gful life. The social organizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> both Brave New World<br />
and Island exerts a str<strong>on</strong>g <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>on</strong> their citizens towards c<strong>on</strong>formism, although <strong>in</strong><br />
Pala there is more room for self-expressi<strong>on</strong> than <strong>in</strong> L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong>. This political l<strong>in</strong>k with the<br />
pers<strong>on</strong>a was raised by Jung himself and has been discussed by Jensen, but most post-<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g>s have chosen to ignore it.<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Jensen, there is a str<strong>on</strong>g c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> between ideology and the<br />
pers<strong>on</strong>a, s<strong>in</strong>ce it is through the pers<strong>on</strong>a that “ideology is <strong>in</strong>trojected <strong>in</strong>to the<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual” (13). Jung identifies the problem when he says that when the social group<br />
presents a certa<strong>in</strong> c<strong>on</strong>flict, a partial identificati<strong>on</strong> with the group eventually draws the<br />
pers<strong>on</strong>ality <strong>in</strong>to it. Thus, “the c<strong>on</strong>flict is transferred <strong>in</strong>to the pers<strong>on</strong>’s own psyche”<br />
(Jensen 13), which means that ideology becomes so <strong>in</strong>ternalized that it is extremely<br />
difficult for the <strong>in</strong>dividual to become aware <strong>of</strong> it. In Jung’s words, “Society is elevated<br />
to the rank <strong>of</strong> a supreme ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciple” (Undiscovered 88), and it is almost<br />
impossible for the <strong>in</strong>dividual to see through the values that are be<strong>in</strong>g imposed <strong>on</strong> him.<br />
In a society like the <strong>on</strong>e shown <strong>in</strong> Brave New World, ideology is quite explicit.<br />
Every<strong>on</strong>e is c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ed to behave <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> ways, and those who rule and dictate<br />
def<strong>in</strong>e how this c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g should be carried out. In Island, the ideology that<br />
permeates the whole society is powerful and the pers<strong>on</strong>a that is imposed <strong>on</strong> the
<strong>in</strong>dividuals has the face <strong>of</strong> the friendly citizen who does his best to c<strong>on</strong>tribute for the<br />
well-be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> his peers. Therefore, the power <strong>of</strong> the social pers<strong>on</strong>a <strong>in</strong> L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong> and <strong>of</strong><br />
the perfectly affecti<strong>on</strong>ate pers<strong>on</strong>a <strong>in</strong> Pala makes it extremely difficult to understand<br />
how this mask has been imposed and what lies beh<strong>in</strong>d it.<br />
This double aspect <strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>a is absent from the discussi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> post-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
critics and theorists, which might also be a sign <strong>of</strong> their political agenda. Jung’s po<strong>in</strong>t<br />
<strong>of</strong> view that the “goal and mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual life (which is the <strong>on</strong>ly real life) no<br />
l<strong>on</strong>ger lie <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual development, but <strong>in</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong> State” (Undiscovered 22), is<br />
seen as c<strong>on</strong>servative. It may, however, expla<strong>in</strong> why several theorists stay away from<br />
the discussi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the political implicati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>a and <strong>of</strong> how it is c<strong>on</strong>structed<br />
by the <strong>in</strong>dividual with the aid <strong>of</strong> social pressure.<br />
When the <strong>in</strong>dividual reflects <strong>on</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>a and tries to discover what lies beh<strong>in</strong>d<br />
this mask, he meets those <strong>archetypes</strong> more closely associated with the process <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>dividuati<strong>on</strong>, such as the shadow, an element <strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>al unc<strong>on</strong>scious, and the<br />
anima, from the collective unc<strong>on</strong>scious. In classical <str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g> formulati<strong>on</strong>, the shadow<br />
embodies those dark characteristics whose very existence you f<strong>in</strong>d so difficult to<br />
recognize <strong>in</strong> yourself, and the anima is the fem<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>e counterpart <strong>of</strong> the mascul<strong>in</strong>e<br />
psyche. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Post</str<strong>on</strong>g>-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g>s tend to see shadow and animas closely l<strong>in</strong>ked, lead<strong>in</strong>g to a<br />
discussi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> how these <strong>archetypes</strong> are c<strong>on</strong>nected with alterity.<br />
The c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> between anima and shadow is po<strong>in</strong>ted out by the post-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g>s<br />
Christopher Hauke and Carol Schreier Rupprecht. Hauke writes that the anima is not<br />
necessarily the expressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the fem<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> man, but is rather “Jung’s term for the<br />
‘other’ <strong>in</strong> ourselves which ego-c<strong>on</strong>sciousness tends to reject” (133). He also po<strong>in</strong>ts out<br />
that <strong>in</strong> fem<strong>in</strong>ist discourse, “each gender has the other as just <strong>on</strong>e part <strong>of</strong> each<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual’s shadow, but the genderised other, and its rejecti<strong>on</strong> is seen as a critical<br />
c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>tati<strong>on</strong> with which men and women would struggle <strong>in</strong> present times” (133). This<br />
idea emphasises that “what is kept for ego or [. . .] despised as other is not neutral or<br />
accidental but arises as a result <strong>of</strong> what culture will or will not support.” The shadow<br />
here becomes c<strong>on</strong>flated with the anima.<br />
Both <strong>in</strong> Brave New World and <strong>in</strong> Island, it is possible to identify a character that<br />
seems to symbolise this comb<strong>in</strong>ati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> shadow and anima. In Brave New World, L<strong>in</strong>da<br />
represents the shadow <strong>in</strong> both L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong> and Malpais. In the Reservati<strong>on</strong>, she is the<br />
prostitute who has many sexual partners, an outcast, and <strong>in</strong> L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong> she has been<br />
turned <strong>in</strong>to a savage just by be<strong>in</strong>g John’s mother, because she is “[h]av<strong>in</strong>g young <strong>on</strong>es<br />
like an animal” (132). L<strong>in</strong>da also presents some characteristics <strong>in</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> with the<br />
anima, especially <strong>in</strong> its mother aspect. Despite be<strong>in</strong>g rejected <strong>in</strong> the Reservati<strong>on</strong>, she<br />
has been able to preserve a sense <strong>of</strong> identity, and it is <strong>on</strong>ly when she goes back to<br />
L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong> that, see<strong>in</strong>g that there is no go<strong>in</strong>g back to the past that she remembers, she<br />
disc<strong>on</strong>nects with herself and gets lost <strong>in</strong> the dream-world <strong>of</strong> soma. As is <strong>of</strong>ten the case<br />
with shadow figures that have to be elim<strong>in</strong>ated rather than dealt with, L<strong>in</strong>da’s somaholiday<br />
is encouraged, s<strong>in</strong>ce it leaves her “most c<strong>on</strong>veniently out <strong>of</strong> the way” (157).<br />
In Island, the character that <strong>of</strong>fers a comb<strong>in</strong>ati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> anima and shadow is the<br />
Rani <strong>of</strong> Pala. As an anima character, she <strong>of</strong>fers a comb<strong>in</strong>ati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the mother and the<br />
medium. As a medium, she has a str<strong>on</strong>g c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> with the “life <strong>of</strong> the Spirit” and has<br />
developed “all sorts <strong>of</strong> sidhis, all the psychic gifts and miraculous powers develop<br />
sp<strong>on</strong>taneously” (57), and as a mother type, she exerts a str<strong>on</strong>g <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>on</strong> her s<strong>on</strong>,
Murugan, heir to the thr<strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> Pala. Both sides <strong>of</strong> her pers<strong>on</strong>ality, however, are t<strong>in</strong>ged<br />
with the darkness <strong>of</strong> the shadow archetype. Will Farnaby sees her as a “self-can<strong>on</strong>ised<br />
world-saviour” and as a “clutch<strong>in</strong>g and devour<strong>in</strong>g mother” (64), a descripti<strong>on</strong> that<br />
recognises the presence <strong>of</strong> this strange, but not wholly unusual, mixture <strong>of</strong> shadow<br />
and anima aspects, a comb<strong>in</strong>ati<strong>on</strong> that is discussed by Rupprecht, who writes that<br />
“[t]he female depicted <strong>in</strong> Jung’s Collected Works and Letters emerges less as<br />
c<strong>on</strong>trasexual to the male than as the male’s shadow” (281). L<strong>in</strong>da and the Rani seem<br />
to fit this descripti<strong>on</strong>. L<strong>in</strong>da’s lack <strong>of</strong> mental power stands out aga<strong>in</strong>st the emphasis<br />
that some <strong>of</strong> the male characters, notably Helmholtz Wats<strong>on</strong> and John Savage, place<br />
<strong>on</strong> their own <strong>in</strong>telligence, whereas the Rani’s lust for m<strong>on</strong>ey and power echoes Bahu’s<br />
and Farnaby’s materialism. The two female characters illustrate how the fem<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>e can<br />
be portrayed as a negative Other.<br />
Just as the c<strong>on</strong>cept <strong>of</strong> anima has been challenged by post-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g>s, the self has<br />
also been put to the test, lead<strong>in</strong>g to a sometimes-thorough revisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this archetype.<br />
Jung sees the self as a central archetype that encompasses the totality <strong>of</strong> the psyche<br />
and as the aim <strong>of</strong> the process <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividuati<strong>on</strong>. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Andrew Samuels, <strong>on</strong>e shift<br />
that several post-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g>s seem to have favoured moves the self away from the noti<strong>on</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> totality and towards a “situati<strong>on</strong>ist, relativised and pluralistic self <strong>in</strong> which clusters <strong>of</strong><br />
experiences carry the feel<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> ‘be<strong>in</strong>g myself’ rather than that <strong>of</strong> feel<strong>in</strong>g ‘whole,’” s<strong>in</strong>ce<br />
they believe that “[i]f the part-self or psychic fragment is lived fully, then wholeness<br />
will take care <strong>of</strong> itself” ( 110). Part-self is another post-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>cept and refers to<br />
each comp<strong>on</strong>ent <strong>of</strong> the self that leads to the experience <strong>of</strong> “feel<strong>in</strong>g to be myself.” Each<br />
part-self may be <strong>in</strong> c<strong>on</strong>flict with other part-selves, but at the same time, each <strong>on</strong>e<br />
carries mean<strong>in</strong>g and relevance, represent<strong>in</strong>g how you see yourself <strong>in</strong> a different<br />
c<strong>on</strong>text. It allows at the same time for a multiplicity <strong>of</strong> experiences and for the lack <strong>of</strong><br />
uniformity and coherence am<strong>on</strong>g the parts.<br />
The multiple part-selves highlight the danger <strong>of</strong> see<strong>in</strong>g the self as a totalitarian<br />
centre that imposes mean<strong>in</strong>g to the various experiences with which the ego is<br />
c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ted throughout life. Samuels says that the self is “a barren and overvalued<br />
c<strong>on</strong>cept when used to deny the multiplicity and policentricity <strong>of</strong> the psyche” (106).<br />
Although Jung does talk about “a multiplicity <strong>of</strong> partial c<strong>on</strong>sciousnesses like stars or<br />
div<strong>in</strong>e sparks” (Samuels 107), the self for him is the archetype that br<strong>in</strong>gs unity to all<br />
these manifestati<strong>on</strong>s. In c<strong>on</strong>trast, some post-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g> writers have tried to move away<br />
from the percepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> self as the all-know<strong>in</strong>g locus <strong>of</strong> the psyche, towards the idea<br />
that <strong>in</strong>tegrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the different part-selves is not always possible and not necessarily<br />
desirable. J. Hillman, for example, “suggests we suspend our habitual th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g about<br />
unity, about stages, about psychological development, a fantasy <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividuati<strong>on</strong>”<br />
(107) and start th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g about “wholeness, <strong>in</strong> a truly psychological sense” as “see<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
phenomen<strong>on</strong> as a whole, as it presents itself” (108). He <strong>in</strong>sists “up<strong>on</strong> the polycentrism<br />
<strong>of</strong> the psyche,” s<strong>in</strong>ce “[e]xclusive emphasis or resoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> chaos <strong>in</strong>to pattern is simply<br />
not feasible, whether <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>fancy or throughout life” (109). This k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong> approach seems<br />
to deflate the self archetype, emphasis<strong>in</strong>g that we should accentuate the importance <strong>of</strong><br />
accept<strong>in</strong>g the plurality <strong>of</strong> the psyche with its many nuclei <strong>of</strong> experience.<br />
The development <strong>of</strong> the ma<strong>in</strong> male character <strong>in</strong> both Island and Brave New World<br />
illustrates the challenge posed by a relativised self. In Brave New World, John Savage<br />
moves from <strong>on</strong>e nucleus <strong>of</strong> experience to another without too much discomfort, but he
seems striv<strong>in</strong>g for a k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>stancy that is more closely related to the traditi<strong>on</strong>al<br />
view <strong>of</strong> the self than with the c<strong>on</strong>cept proposed by the post-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g>s. His <strong>in</strong>ner c<strong>on</strong>flict<br />
is shown when he is not chosen to perform the religious cerem<strong>on</strong>y <strong>in</strong> fr<strong>on</strong>t <strong>of</strong> the<br />
people, s<strong>in</strong>ce he would have d<strong>on</strong>e it gladly “[f]or the sake <strong>of</strong> the pueblo – to make the<br />
ra<strong>in</strong> come and the corn grow” (123). These words seem to <strong>in</strong>dicate that he sees<br />
himself as a full member <strong>of</strong> the community though he is not seen as <strong>on</strong>e. His next<br />
defiant words, however, show that his reas<strong>on</strong>s may go bey<strong>on</strong>d that, when “his voice<br />
suddenly took <strong>on</strong> a new res<strong>on</strong>ance, he turned with a proud squar<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the shoulder, a<br />
proud, defiant lift<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the ch<strong>in</strong>, ‘to show that I’m a man’” (123). If he had been<br />
accepted as a full adult member <strong>of</strong> the community, he might have brought together his<br />
c<strong>on</strong>flict<strong>in</strong>g part-selves, but this does not happen.<br />
Another facet <strong>of</strong> John’s self <strong>in</strong>cludes his relati<strong>on</strong>ship with Len<strong>in</strong>a Crowne. He<br />
cannot rec<strong>on</strong>cile his own desire for Len<strong>in</strong>a Crowne with his dream <strong>of</strong> a pure and<br />
beautiful girl. When he has already moved to the lighthouse, Len<strong>in</strong>a comes to see him,<br />
and he gets furious. He hits her repeatedly with the whip, strik<strong>in</strong>g “at his own<br />
rebellious flesh, or at the plump <strong>in</strong>carnati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> turpitude writh<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the heather at his<br />
feet” (254). The tumult <strong>of</strong> pa<strong>in</strong> turns <strong>in</strong>to an orgy, and when John wakes up the next<br />
morn<strong>in</strong>g, he remembers “his l<strong>on</strong>g-drawn frenzy <strong>of</strong> sensuality” (254), and he decides to<br />
take his life. John is unable to bear the c<strong>on</strong>flict <strong>of</strong> his oppos<strong>in</strong>g feel<strong>in</strong>gs, as if his partselves<br />
were at war with <strong>on</strong>e another. The world that he wishes for, however, a world<br />
where people can be free, seems to be a symbol <strong>of</strong> the self archetype <strong>in</strong> its traditi<strong>on</strong>al<br />
form, which cannot handle what Hillman calls “a multiple field <strong>of</strong> shift<strong>in</strong>g loci and<br />
complicated relati<strong>on</strong>s” (qtd <strong>in</strong> Samuels 107). The way that his dangl<strong>in</strong>g feet move “like<br />
two unhurried compass needles,” turn<strong>in</strong>g “towards the right [and then] unhurriedly<br />
back towards the left” (Brave 255) <strong>in</strong>dicates the multiplicity <strong>of</strong> paths that he could<br />
have trodden <strong>on</strong> his path towards <strong>in</strong>dividuati<strong>on</strong>.<br />
In Island, Will Farnaby presents a variety <strong>of</strong> part-selves, and <strong>in</strong>itially his <strong>in</strong>ner<br />
c<strong>on</strong>flict at not be<strong>in</strong>g able to <strong>in</strong>tegrate them is quite clear. He is the hard-boiled reporter<br />
who travels around the world writ<strong>in</strong>g about the war and its evil c<strong>on</strong>sequences <strong>in</strong><br />
different countries. He poses as totally unsentimental and goes to the cocktail party at<br />
the Rendang Foreign Office; yet, he is deeply touched by the “poor wretches” <strong>in</strong> the<br />
slums <strong>of</strong> Rendang, “more aband<strong>on</strong>ed by God and man than even the homeless,<br />
hopeless thousands he had seen sleep<strong>in</strong>g like corpses <strong>in</strong> the streets <strong>of</strong> Calcutta” (93).<br />
His bitterness, however, does not prevent him from admir<strong>in</strong>g what has been achieved<br />
<strong>in</strong> Pala. The hard-boiled reporter decides to give up his lucrative bus<strong>in</strong>ess for the<br />
spiritual values that he has re-discovered am<strong>on</strong>g the Palanese. He has a glimpse <strong>of</strong><br />
what <strong>in</strong>dividuati<strong>on</strong> entails dur<strong>in</strong>g the cerem<strong>on</strong>y at the temple and <strong>in</strong> his own mokshatrip,<br />
when he f<strong>in</strong>ally sees the world and himself as a unified and mean<strong>in</strong>gful whole,<br />
although the experience <strong>of</strong> totality is not permanent yet.<br />
C<strong>on</strong>sider<strong>in</strong>g the traditi<strong>on</strong>al c<strong>on</strong>cept <strong>of</strong> self, neither John nor Will is able to achieve<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividuati<strong>on</strong>. John’s aim for wholeness cannot be achieved because he is unable to<br />
<strong>in</strong>tegrate his c<strong>on</strong>flict<strong>in</strong>g feel<strong>in</strong>gs. Individuati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> the post-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g> sense also eludes<br />
him, as he does not manage to c<strong>on</strong>nect with the feel<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> ‘be<strong>in</strong>g himself’ with<strong>in</strong> each<br />
cluster <strong>of</strong> experience. Will Farnaby does not reach the <str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g> self either, s<strong>in</strong>ce he is<br />
unable to rec<strong>on</strong>cile his old cynical self with his new ethical and compassi<strong>on</strong>ate <strong>on</strong>e. In<br />
view <strong>of</strong> the post-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g> self archetype, however, the rec<strong>on</strong>ciliati<strong>on</strong> is not really
necessary. Will’s past experience and c<strong>on</strong>tact with tyco<strong>on</strong>s, generals and m<strong>on</strong>eylenders,<br />
“the cyanide <strong>of</strong> the earth” (93), may actually turn out to be positive when Pala<br />
is <strong>in</strong>vaded and Dr. McPhail assass<strong>in</strong>ated, s<strong>in</strong>ce it may help him deal with the new<br />
political order imposed <strong>on</strong> the island.<br />
The use <strong>of</strong> post-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g> formulati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the <strong>archetypes</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividuati<strong>on</strong> highlights<br />
some aspects that the <str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g> approach may sometimes leave <strong>in</strong> the dark. The<br />
political relevance <strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>a shows how ideology permeates our lives, whereas<br />
the c<strong>on</strong>flati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> shadow and anima <strong>in</strong>dicates that the dark other that lives <strong>in</strong>side us<br />
<strong>in</strong>cludes aspects that are not <strong>on</strong>ly cultural but also gender-t<strong>on</strong>ed, pos<strong>in</strong>g difficulties <strong>on</strong><br />
our path towards self-realisati<strong>on</strong>. The new c<strong>on</strong>cept <strong>of</strong> part-self and the idea <strong>of</strong> multiple<br />
processes <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividuati<strong>on</strong>, however, suggest that even though a f<strong>in</strong>al and permanent<br />
state <strong>of</strong> feel<strong>in</strong>g whole may elude us. Will Farnaby, <strong>in</strong> Island, knows that two oppos<strong>in</strong>g<br />
facts, “the fact <strong>of</strong> the end<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> sorrow as well as the fact <strong>of</strong> sorrow” (335) live side by<br />
side, irrec<strong>on</strong>cilable, maybe, so that <strong>in</strong>dividuati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> the traditi<strong>on</strong>al sense is not<br />
achievable. Yet, the process that leads to the experience <strong>of</strong> “be<strong>in</strong>g yourself,” however<br />
provisi<strong>on</strong>al, should n<strong>on</strong>etheless be pursued.<br />
Resumo:<br />
Os arquétipos de <strong>in</strong>dividuação, propostos por C. G. Jung, foram<br />
questi<strong>on</strong>ados e parcialmente reformulados por autores pósjunguianos.<br />
Pers<strong>on</strong>a, sombra, anima e self <strong>of</strong>erecem exemplos<br />
dessas novas abordagens, e seu uso na análise de Admirável<br />
mundo novo e A ilha, de <strong>Aldous</strong> Huxley, evidencia aspectos<br />
culturais desses romances.<br />
Palavras-chave: arquétipos, <strong>in</strong>dividuação, Jung, pós-junguiano<br />
Works Cited<br />
Hauke, Christopher. Jung and the <str<strong>on</strong>g>Post</str<strong>on</strong>g>modern: The Interpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Realities.<br />
L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong>: Routledge, 2000.<br />
Huxley, <strong>Aldous</strong>. Brave New World. 1932. L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong>: Harper, 1993.<br />
______. Island. 1962. L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong>: Granada, 1976.<br />
Jensen, George H. Introducti<strong>on</strong>. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Post</str<strong>on</strong>g>-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g> Criticism: Theory and Practice. Ed.<br />
James Bauml<strong>in</strong>, Tita French Bauml<strong>in</strong>, and George H. Jensen. Albany: State U <strong>of</strong><br />
New York P, 2004. 1-30.<br />
Jung, C. Jung: Selected Writ<strong>in</strong>gs. Ed. and <strong>in</strong>trod. Anth<strong>on</strong>y Storr. L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong>:<br />
F<strong>on</strong>tana, 1983.<br />
______. The Archetypes and the Collective Unc<strong>on</strong>scious. 2nd . ed. Ed. Herbert<br />
Read et al. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Vol. 9, Part 2 <strong>of</strong> The Collected Works <strong>of</strong> C. G.<br />
Jung. 1969. Boll<strong>in</strong>gen Series XX. Pr<strong>in</strong>cet<strong>on</strong>: Pr<strong>in</strong>cet<strong>on</strong> UP, 1980.<br />
______. The Undiscovered Self. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. New York: Mentor, 1958.
Rupprecht Carol Schreier. “Enlighten<strong>in</strong>g Shadows: Between Fem<strong>in</strong>ism and<br />
Archetypalism, Literature and Analysis.” C. G. Jung and the Humanities: Towards<br />
a Hermeneutics <strong>of</strong> Culture. Ed. Kar<strong>in</strong> Barnaby and Pellegr<strong>in</strong>o D’Acierno.<br />
Pr<strong>in</strong>cet<strong>on</strong>: Pr<strong>in</strong>cet<strong>on</strong> UP, 1990. 279-93.<br />
Samuels, Andrew. Jung and the <str<strong>on</strong>g>Post</str<strong>on</strong>g>-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Jungian</str<strong>on</strong>g>s. L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong>: Routledge, 1986.