Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Jung was not particularly strongly connected with the perspective of social thought, although the main categories of his conception undoubtedly often have the adjective “collective”; they are categories of unconscious and the archetype considered as a structure of a collective nature: for example, as “categories of collective imagination”. In this term, he referred to the philosophical history of the conceptions of the unconscious as a sphere conditioning all the significant processes of reality and the sociological approaches of the French school of “collective representations,” which influenced his notion of the archetype. There are many dilemmas about the relationship that can occur between a differentiation of collective and social levels. A lot of Jung’s writings refer directly to the issues of social thought, especially, but not only, those concentrated in the volume Civilization in Transition, for example, statements from his interviews, notes from meetings with him (they present extensive material of Jung’s comments to current situations and events of a socio-political nature, such as totalitarianism, authoritarianism, political leadership) or the issue of contemporary forms of religiosity. Many of these writings present a special relationship between the individual and society, the archetype and the historical, social dimensions, mass processes and collective imagination, in which archetypal images operate. Jung is not the only researcher who has demonstrated a deep understanding of the problem of collective/social imagination. Similar grasps can be found, among others, in the conceptions of Gilbert Durand or Charles Taylor. The first examines the anthropological structures of these images, the second, changes in social imaginaries and their characteristics. The juxtaposition of these forms of reflection opens the way to understanding a particular power of collective imagination.