ytJfe.m^M. Mi- f^miiii. Ј" W Sri— ifjatw:™^
mum. v-?' tm" tjtr^j
IsimtjcJiUUiritSi- J^liii^i. Ai W/vliMUJrJ Srii ttiAejw 9c-
Urrd ttAttt /Jo j^jrltt [-utr-uur Ј>crac-r o-liUtB {V ivn (u^y^Auturivc^ tx^r
hft^ ^>1 Am " ItUuipCl jo; V4 HI.'HIV ftc "Ji*Iw^Aiilnjfl^r/
The Red Book by Carl G. Jung, edited by Sonu Shamdasani, translated by Mark Kyburz, John Peck, and Sonu Shamdasani. Copyright © 2009 by the Foundation of the Works of C.G. Jung. Translation © 2009 by Mark Kyburz, John Peck, and Sonu Shamdasani. Used by permission of W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. See p. C-3 in the color insert for a full-color reproduction of this image.
UNDERSTANDING THE TEXT
Why do you think that Philemon has wings? What might the "wings of the kingfisher" have represented to Jung in his dream?
What does the old man appear to be standing on? Why might this be significant?
The text in the upper left-hand corner reads, "Father of the Prophet, Beloved Philemon." What might Jung be suggesting by mixing the Judeo-Christian concept of a "prophet" with the Greek pagan character of Philemon?
What might the snake coiled around the tree symbolize? Why is this figure in the same image as Philemon?
In his initial description of his dream of Philemon, Jung describes him as holding four keys. What do you think that these keys represent? What "locks" could they be designed to open?
The marginal note in the upper left margin comes from the Hindu text, The Bhagavad Gita, and reads, "Whenever there is a decline of the law and an increase in iniquity, then I put forth myself. For the rescue of the pious and for the destruction of the evildoers, for the establishment of the law I am born in every age." How might this quotation, in which the Hindu deity Vishnu describes his decision to take on human flesh, apply to the painting?
MAKING CONNECTIONS
How does the view of the mind that comes through in Jung's painting compare with that found in either the phrenology or the brain-scan images (p. 104)?
Compare the Jungian view of archetypes in the collective unconscious with Edward O. Wilson's view of the instinctive elements of human nature (p. 356). Could the same factors be responsible for both universal behaviors and universal responses to symbols?
Look at the quotation from the Bhagavad Gita (see question #6 above) in relation to the drawing of Philemon. What might Jung be saying about law and government? How do his views compare to those incorporated into the frontispiece of Hobbes's Leviathan (p. 414)?
WRITING ABOUT THE TEXT
Write a paper comparing the two primary images in Jung's drawing: the figure of the wise old man and the figure of the snake coiled around the tree. Explain the connections or the contrasts between these two images in the same drawing.
Compare the image from Jung's Red Book with Blake's illustration of "The Tyger" from Songs of Experience (p. 262)? Does Blake's drawing suggest the same kind of universal archetype that Jung's painting does?
Conduct further research into the Jungian ideas of archetypes and the collective unconscious and use your research to explicate the images in this drawing.
ruth benedict
The Individual and the Pattern of Culture [1934]
RUTH FULTON BENEDICT (1887-1948) was one of a key group of scholars who, in the early twentieth century, developed the discipline of cultural anthropology—a set of strategies and assumptions for studying different cultures. Benedict entered Columbia University in 1919 to study under the world-famous anthropologist Franz Boas (1858-1942). Four years later, she received a Ph.D. in anthropology and joined the faculty at Columbia, where one of her first doctoral students was Margaret Mead (1901-1978), who went on to become the best-known anthropologist of the century.
Benedict and her colleagues believed that cultures should be studied without the prejudices that most people experience when they encounter lifestyles and values different than their own. Unlike previous generations of anthropologists, who either made judgments about other cultures based on their own value systems or studied different peoples to discover "human universals" that could be applied across the spectrum of humanity, the cultural anthropologists observed other cultures impartially, evaluated them on the cultures' own terms, and described their findings without inserting their own values into the descriptions. Benedict called this approach "cultural relativism," referring to the belief that "right" and "wrong" were defined by individual cultures and could not be generalized in any fashion to all people or societies.
Benedict's first book, Patterns of Culture, became a national bestseller and introduced millions of Americans to anthropology. In it Benedict examines the basic assumptions of three cultures: the gentle, austere Zuni Pueblo Indians of New Mexico; the violent, brutal Dobu tribe of New Guinea; and the highly structured, hierarchical Kwakiutl Indians of the Pacific Northwest coast, near Vancouver. After considering the practices and values of these three cultures, Benedict proposes that values are always situated within a cultural context and that a tremendous amount of what people call "human nature" must be attributed to the influence of culture.
In the selection here, the conclusion to Patterns of Culture, Benedict examines the relationship between the individual and his or her culture. She rejects the assumption that an inherent conflict exists between the needs of the individual and the needs of society and argues instead that individuals and society form an integrated whole, with individual personalities contributing to the fabric of a culture, and with that cultural fabric constraining the range of choices that any individual can make. Even those character traits that occur across the spectrum of human society are interpreted in very different ways by different cultures, leading to different kinds of lives for those who possess them.
Like several other writers in this chapter, Benedict builds her argument on the form of inductive reasoning known as generalization. Specifically, she examines the conventions of several historical and contemporary societies and uses her conclusions as the basis for an argument about human nature in general.
There is no proper antagonism between the role of society and that of the individual. One of the most misleading misconceptions due to this nineteenth- century dualism[50] was the idea that what was subtracted from society was added to the individual and what was subtracted from the individual was added to society. Philosophies of freedom, political creeds of laissez faire,[51] revolutions that have unseated dynasties, have been built on this dualism. The quarrel in anthropological theory between the importance of the culture pattern and of the individual is only a small ripple from this fundamental conception of the nature of society.
In reality, society and the individual are not antagonists. His culture provides the raw material of which the individual makes his life. If it is meagre, the individual suffers; if it is rich, the individual has the chance to rise to his opportunity. Every private interest of every man and woman is served by the enrichment of the traditional stores of his civilization. The richest musical sensitivity can operate only within the equipment and standards of its tradition. It will add, perhaps importantly, to that tradition, but its achievement remains in proportion to the instruments and musical theory which the culture has provided. In the same fashion a talent for observation expends itself in some Melanesian[52] tribe upon the negligible borders of the magico-religious field. For a realization of its potentialities it is dependent upon the development of scientific methodology, and it has no fruition unless the culture has elaborated the necessary concepts and tools.