You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Examination of the empirical data and the ideas about the shadow which Jung presents to us in his published work and his seminars shows that no single definition is adequate to elucidate what he means to represent by the term. Therefore we shall start by demonstrating the usefulness of having this concept in mind as a metaphor that helps to organize a number of data from different fields. Later on, we shall employ definitions as instruments to further discussion.
The justification for this method is partly its empirical value and partly the idea that it reflects a dialectic between a clear conscious formula and unconscious processes which are thus elucidated.
Consider first the social field. Here we find that any particular society meets the needs of only some of its members. Others are less satisfied and become resentful, envious, or rebellious; others again become antisocial and live a life in opposition to the law, i.e. they are criminals. Thus we can think of the achievements of any society on the one hand with satisfaction and admiration, but can recognize that its one-sided development has also its shadow. If the society is functioning well the shadow compensates the social good, but if it becomes too powerful there will be a disaster of one sort or another.
Next there is the religious field, which can be treated separately, though it is really related to the society of which it is a part. Here again opposites are found at work. In the Christian religion the shadow is one element in a conflict between good and evil which can become largely split off altogether from human beings, who then become virtually pawns in a divine drama. In any case, man is not ultimately responsible for his sins, and salvation