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.
The starting point of Dr Weisstub's paper is that the term ‘self’ has acquired too many shades of meaning, and that therefore a review of its usage is now called for. Accordingly, the author proposes a revision, as follows: the self is equated with the unconscious, and the ego with consciousness; the self does not include the ego, but the two terms denote discrete, mutually exclusive entities; and the self is represented by, or related to, feminine imagery and the feminine principle, the ego by masculine. These two principles are not gender-bound, but are present in all people, male and female.
The fact that the use of the term ‘self’ by Jung and Jungians is varied and complex is amply borne out by the number of attempts to clarify and systematize its connotations. Dr Weisstub is fully entitled to draw attention once again to the inconsistencies in usage, and to propose his own solution, an attempt to tidy up the jungle, if you like. To achieve this, he draws on a wide range of literature, including psychoanalysis and comparative religion, in which he finds support for his thesis.
It is an entirely valid point to make that Jung and his successors do often associate the feminine with the self. But the inconsistencies in usage represent the complexity and fluidity of the material with which we are dealing in psychological discourse. For example in developmental terms, the ego emerges from the unconscious, and that invites the use of feminine, maternal imagery in relation to the unconscious. Only in maturity does the ego attain a measure of separateness. So the relationship between ego and self is not static, and it is doubtful whether any one thing can be said about it which would be valid for all its phases and fluctuations. So is this proposed solution perhaps too tidv?
The author starts off by proposing a new ‘notation’, a term drawn from his opening quotation from Plaut, i.e. a new set of terminological definitions. He argues that both Jung and his successors in thei