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.
I am going to consider questions raised by the two main Christian symbols, the holy virgin and child and the crucifixion, both of which appeared in the clinical material of one of my patients, Joan. To Joan the crucifix was a persecutory image which she experienced as reinforcing an inner split, rather than as a symbol with a potential for growth. Clinically, she presented problems belonging to early development, while at the same time struggling to individuate in her adult relationships. Distorted body imagery, separation anxiety and guilt were central themes in her material. For Joan it seemed that conflict and suffering were trapped in a malign sado-masochistic circle, rather than belonging to a process linked with growth.
Jung has, of course, discussed the symbolic significance of Christ, and the crucifix, in many ways. It is a recurring theme running throughout his work, and he has taken different and, at times, almost diametrically opposed positions in relation to the theme. This is understandable in view of the depth and complexity of the symbolism, to which there must inevitably be a wide range of possible meaningful responses. I will be considering whether the two main Christian images could be regarded as an archetypal finalistic statement of a theme of unity and separation which developmental models put into a personal causal context (JUNG 5, p. 3). Strauss has already discussed the mother-infant image as representing the original state of union, the pre-differentiated self. She has contrasted this image with conjunctio, the self symbolized by the union of opposites (STRAUSS 16).
Archetypal determinants and developmental processes are, of course, interrelated. Jung refers to the causal view as fact and the final view as symbol. He states, however, that, ‘the theory of development cannot do without the final point of view’ (JUNG 5, p. 23). The advances in developmental models has reinforced the position that a clear-cut differentiation is