Pierre Janet’s Fixed Ideas and his impact on Jungian Thought

In delving into the intricacies of Janet’s ideas, I often found myself questioning whether I was reading about Janet or the eminent C.G. Jung. The profound influence of Janet’s thinking on Jung is unmistakable, akin to the birth of the ego from the unconscious, a concept pioneered by Jung himself. However, it becomes apparent that Jung and his entire framework owe a debt to the unconscious history of Depth Psychology, primarily shaped by Janet’s intellectual legacy.

This table provides a concise overview of the parallels and distinctions in the ideas of Pierre Janet and Carl Jung. It serves as a quick reference for readers to grasp the key elements that shaped their respective contributions to depth psychology.

Central to this intellectual exchange is the concept of the complex, a cornerstone in Jung’s development that traces its roots to Janet’s notion of “fixed ideas.” These ideas, residing just below the threshold of consciousness, were deemed “subconscious” by Janet, a term he himself coined (Discovery of the Unconscious pg.406), corresponding seamlessly to Jung’s personal unconscious.

Janet’s inklings about the collective unconscious can be discerned in his assertion that “in the human mind, nothing ever gets lost” (Discovery of the unconscious pg.366). The symbolic character attributed to subconscious fixed idea symptoms aligns with Jung’s later elaboration on archetypes, suggesting a profound link between the two thinkers.

The emergence of complexes or fixed ideas, characterized as a result of “mental weakness” (Discovery of the unconscious pg.373), resonates with Jung’s notion of “subpersonalities” (Discovery of the unconscious pg.406). Here, Jung introduces the idea that we don’t merely have complexes; at times, they have us, portraying the ego as just one complex among many that can govern our psyche. Beyond the realm of complexes, Janet’s influence extends to key concepts such as mental force, analogous to Jung’s Libido, and mental tension, a precursor to Jung’s idea of the tension of opposites creating dynamism in the psyche.

Janet’s impact is also discernible in Jung’s early typological classifications of extraversion and introversion, rooted in Janet’s distinction between hysteria and psychasthenia. These distinctions served as prototypes for Jung’s extroverted and introverted personalities, contributing significantly to the understanding of neuroses. Delving into Janet’s biography, his deep religious feelings are a recurrent theme, subtly interwoven with the spirit of his times. This intriguing aspect prompts a reconsideration of Janet’s typology, oscillating between an Introverted Thinking and an Introverted Sensation type. Using John Beebe’s Cultural Attitude Model, the Introverted Sensation & Intuitive Types are linked to the Religious Attitude. I am inclined to lean towards “Si,” for Janet.

The synthesis of these influences takes an intriguing turn as we consider what Jung brought to Janet’s unfinished exploration of the Psychology of Religion (Discovery of the unconscious pg.400). Janet’s analysis of belief as a psychological phenomenon, where gods are perceived as “beings” in the psyche, lays a foundation that Jung later expounds upon in his collected works on Psychology and Religion. In Janet’s contemplation of the question “Do the gods exist?” from a psychological analysis of belief, we witness the seeds of Jung’s later work. The distinction between belief in scientific facts and religious realities, as articulated by Janet, resonates in Jung’s comprehensive exploration of Psychology and Religion: West and East.

Let’s add one more column to see how it correlates to the East.

In the realm of psychological ideas, the attribution of Jung to complexes no longer appears as solely his own. The distinctiveness seems entwined with Janet, underscoring how the history of ideas mirrors the history of marketing. Each profound thinker endeavors to patent an idea, only for it to be reimagined and renamed by the subsequent intellect, often leading to financial gain. So, in what way does Jung’s complex theory differ from Janet’s fixed ideas? The distinction lies not in dissimilarity but in depth.

Jung’s characterization as a metaphysician in relation to pragmatic scientists becomes evident. He elevated the concept of the complex, infusing it with religious ideas and symbol systems. The initial elaboration is at the structural level, where fixed ideas manifest as functional and dysfunctional. The primary functional fixed idea is the ego, representing one’s identity as an “I” and a collection of conscious and unconscious experiences. Other functional complexes include the four functions, each associated with specific attributes, and the Shadow. These fixed ideas possess an emotional or archetypal core, constituting the second elaboration. Jung identifies this core as mythic or symbolic, a notion that Janet only partially acknowledged through symptoms. However, Jung situates this core beyond the subconscious, in a deeper reservoir known as the collective unconscious.

The third elaboration involves the word association method, incorporating a physiological component. Jung delved into the psychosomatic aspects of the complex or fixed idea, empirically linking word stimuli to galvanic skin responses, a precursor to the lie detector. Perhaps Janet’s concept of narrowing the field of consciousness relates to the disruption of consciousness triggered by these physiological responses.

Jung viewed complexes as the architects of dream content, a stark contrast to Janet, who rejected and devalued dreams to the extent of labeling Psychoanalysis, which Jung was once part of, as a “metaphysical system” (Discovery of the unconscious pg.344). While the germ of the complex idea may have originated with Janet, Jung significantly extended and deepened it. However, fundamentally, their rudiments exhibit no discernible differences.

In conclusion, the intricate intellectual dance between Janet and Jung raises compelling questions. Did Jung, in a sense, complete the book on the Psychology of Religion that Janet never finished? Or did Jung, by not betraying his deep religious feelings like Janet, contribute to the evolution of depth psychology in a unique and unspoken way?

3 Reasons Why Exploring Janet’s Ideas Is Essential:

1. Roots of Depth Psychology: Understanding Janet’s ideas provides a profound insight into the foundational roots of Depth Psychology, unraveling the origins of concepts central to Jungian thought.
2. Intellectual Exchange: Exploring the interplay between Janet and Jung offers a fascinating journey into the intellectual exchange that shaped the landscape of psychological theories, paving the way for future developments.
3. Unfinished Narratives: Delving into Janet’s unfinished narratives, especially on the Psychology of Religion, invites readers to contemplate the unspoken contributions and potential collaborations that influenced the trajectory of depth psychology.

Resources:

1. Ellenberger, H. (2006). The discovery of the unconscious: The history and evolution of dynamic psychiatry. New York: Basic Books.
2. Jung, C. G. (2014). The psychology of the transference. London: Routledge.
3. Jung, C. G. (2017). Psychological types. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.