Dying to Self: Reconciliation and Jung’s Shadow

The relationship between psychoanalysis and Christianity has been a complicated tug-of-war premised on relevance. It is a relationship that has had to navigate metaphysical claims, varying understandings of truth, and differing subjective experiences that has resulted in both parties weighing the necessity of the other. However, one psychoanalyst who did not totally disregard the relevancy of religion and its inherent compatibility with psychology was Swiss psychoanalyst, Carl G. Jung. Despite Jung’s own complicated relationship with the Church, the myths and symbolism within its teachings influenced his work. One concept that has a religious timbre is Jung’s understanding of the process of confronting and incorporating one’s Shadow. This difficult and often painful process is a necessary step in Jung’s eyes to achieve a salvific individuation that involves the suffering of the Ego[1] as it confronts the Shadow[2]. It is a process of descending within one’s self prior to ascending to wholeness[3]. The idea of descending in order to ascend is a symbolic motif commonly found within Christian theology and religious thought. In their particular language, these mediums communicate a similar — if not the same — notion of salvific self-knowledge coming from an authentic inward-descent. The commonality between this Christian theme and the process of individuation sets the table for discussion between Christian practice and psychoanalysis, centered on confronting one’s true nature. However, I am not addressing Jung’s theology or his understanding of God and Christianity. Instead, my aim is to analyze two works with explicit Christian imagery that communicate plausibly compatible symbolism with Jung’s process of incorporating the Shadow, and how the intersection between reconciliation and confronting one’s Shadow helps re-imagine the notion of “dying-to-self.”

There are a plethora of literary works that incorporate cultural understandings of God, self, and reconciliation in various ways that could have been useful for this analysis. Because of the many potential options spanning many centuries and various cultures, I have selected two works that differ in audience, format, and intention while utilizing common Western Christian imagery. The first work I will be analyzing is John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. It is a theological work that was written in the late 16th century and is best known for Calvin’s understanding of humanity depravity leading to a proper knowledge of God. The second work is Martin Scorsese’s film, Silence. Released in 2016, it is an adaptation of Shusako Endo’s book of the same title that centers on the physical and spiritual struggle of a Jesuit missionary in 17th-century Japan. The film focuses on the horseshoe relationship between Father Rodrigues and Kichijiro in how they are initially contrasted against each other as representations of Jesus and Judas, only to realize their need to recognize their shared, innate familiarity. These two works, with their differing formats, intentions, and language, portray some semblance of encountering one’s true nature as being holistically beneficial. It is at this intersection that Jung’s concept of incorporating one’s Shadow can highlight the hidden wisdom within the Christian theme of dying-to-self as it leads to reconciliation, a process that necessitates painfully and honestly locating one’s perception of self in proximity to their ideal — proper faith, communion with God, and/or wholeness.

For Jung, the height of human health, the goal of psychological development[4], and the religious-like goal of all humanity[5] is the realization of the whole self[6]. This process of self-realization is called individuation where the person becomes unified and whole, i.e. un-dividable[7]. It is a necessary process for psychological health and maturity that also affects physical and social health as the individuation process aims for an inner reconciliation that is reflected through external relations[8]. Yet, this process can be a difficult task. It requires an existential suffering that comes from confronting a familiar monster in the mirror. Jung does not shy away from the painful reality of this inward descent. If anything, the pain could be equated to the growing pains involved in acknowledging the illusionary nature of one’s Persona formerly being believed as the totality of the self. This dying-to-a-former-perception-of-self is the suffering and passion of the Ego[9] as the Shadow is revealed as a legitimate part of the self.

The Shadow is an often-personified conglomerate of repressed aspects[10], neglected tendencies[11], and undesirable traits[12] that run contrary to the desires of the Ego or Persona[13]. It can be a complicated process as these traits are within the personal unconsciousness and are initially unknown to the individual[14]. However, these rejected unconscious aspects of the individual can be inferred from strong emotional responses to others[15]. The astute level of reaction can be attributed to the Ego’s rejection and consequent projection of certain undesirable traits onto others[16]. According to Jung, the Shadow appears in dreams and through projections as a personification of everything that the subject refuses to acknowledge about their self[17]. But one must be aware of these projections as they can blind the Ego to one’s commonality with everyone else[18]. The avoidance of acknowledging these projections further isolates the Ego from the Self in the over-development and an over-reliance on the Persona[19]. The more the Persona is understood as encapsulating the whole of the person the more they are exposed to the danger of an one-sidedness that impairs the ability to acknowledge their darker side[20]. This incomplete self-perception affects how the individual assess themselves in regards to good and evil. Often times this can lead to a false sense of morality as the person is fearful of portraying anything contrary to their social mask. This fear of honestly looking in the mirror leads to an unsustainable performance that further represses the darker aspects of themselves, which causes one half to develop at the expense of the other.

Another related danger that comes from ignoring one’s Shadow is when a person sees themselves beyond good and evil. Jung suggests that those who believe they are above good and evil, “are usually the worst tormentors of mankind, because they are twisted with the pain and fear of their own sickness[21].” Later Jung adds, “[t]oday as never before it is important that human beings should not overlook the danger of the evil lurking within them[22].” Because of the Shadow’s tendency to be projected to external objects, any reluctance to wrestle with the truths of one’s full self can externally affect the person in various ways[23]. Either this unbalance will deepen the hole they have placed themselves in or this illusion will eventually crumple under the weight of experience. Ideally, this sobering awareness post-Persona-failure will begin the process of unification beginning with coming face-to-face with one’s inner devil that has made itself utterly unavoidable.

In order to acknowledge the potential for evil wrought in human nature — in everyone — evil must be seen as real and not as the Augustinian view of evil being the privation of good[24]. Another way to think of the existence of evil is in the primordial presence of chaos. This theme is ripe within Ancient Near Eastern creation myths, including Genesis 1, and posits chaos as being axiomatic to existence. By allowing evil to have its own existence and allowing it to be incorporated into one’s God-image, makes it possible for good and evil to be balanced in the totality of God[25]. This influences each person’s Shadow project as one’s God-image and Self-image both symbolize wholeness and are indistinguishable from each other[26]. On this front, traditional Christian theology balks at the idea of the Self-image and God-image being one in the same[27], and even more, so at the notion that evil has its own absolute existence[28]. The question then arises of how Christianity can benefit from valuing the need to acknowledge one’s true nature, one’s Shadow?

One of the benefits of understanding one’s capacity for evil and honestly acknowledging their human nature is alluded to in Calvin’s claim that humanity’s knowledge of self is in direct relation with knowledge of the Divine. The opening chapter of The Institutes of the Christian Religion is concerned with the notion that there is a mutual relationship between the knowledge of self and the knowledge of the Divine that is contingent on an understanding of humanity’s deprived nature[29]. This awareness acts as the lock and key to understanding Calvin’s desire to maintain the sovereignty and mystery of God. In that, this honest and humble assessment of one’s limits and innate corruption affords the opportunity to submit to something authoritatively Other. The awareness of one’s own limits acts as a buffer to spiritual megalomania in the understanding that no formulated idea or image of God can fully comprise the true majesty of the holy Other[30]. This initial juxtaposition between God and humanity highlights the chasm separating the two, while shedding a light that the first possible step towards relation is an honest understanding of one’s true self[31]. Or, as Calvin puts it, “we cannot seriously aspire to Him before we begin to become displeased with ourselves[32].” This call to displeasure with one’s self acts similarly to Jung’s mirror of confrontation, as the individual, now seeing their self honestly, allows the possibility for an Other to be sought after outside of the Ego.

Similar to Jung, Calvin sees a benefit in acknowledging the realness of evil (or sin) in the individual. This foundational truth underlines a need for something higher, something Other. Regardless if that higher need is wholeness or communion with God, the initial step towards that goal is acknowledging one’s attributes that are avoided, repressed, and hidden from view. This inner descent into the hidden hell within everyone becomes a necessary step for a future ascent up to heaven. This theme is beautifully portrayed in Dante’s Inferno. Dante must descend through hell and place himself amongst the sinners by acknowledging his own sins of lust and anger, which is conveyed by Dante’s emotional involvement with the corresponding level of hell that deals with his own struggles. Calvin, as with Dante, emphasizes the transition of the individual’s particular sin with the universal and common guilt of sin. This process is painful and requires the person to strip-away any false-notions and illusions of themselves as it reminds them of their helplessness and their communal guilt of sin[33]. However, this confrontation with the sinner within is not to be rejected. For if one were to reject this revelation then it would only inflate the illusion of the individual being the exception to the rule as they believe that they are able to reach to heaven without conceding that their roots must also reach to hell[34]. For Calvin, this admission of guilt spans from the particular to the universal, thus necessitating the individual’s continual awareness of their depravity, as one is unable to truly reject their sinful nature. But this is not meant to be burden; it acts as a stepping-stone to fully appreciating and revering the majesty and mystery of God. Both Jung and Calvin see this process as a sustained transition. Meaning, on one hand, it is an honest view of the self that is sustained and is continually drawn upon in order to prevent further one-sidedness. On the other, it is transitional as it ushers in a developed self-perception that renders the latter understanding of one’s self obsolete. No longer is the Persona viewed as the totality of the Self but now as the person confronts their Shadow they are made aware of their other rejected half. Because of this painful confrontation one’s self-perception is further developed. Likewise, no longer is someone’s guilt of sin truly different than any others but as they confront their own depravity and acknowledge their limitedness their approach to God’s unifying grace and mystery is enhanced by a palpable lack.

Reading The Institutes of the Christian Religion with a Jungian lens lends an interpretation that removes the supposed heavy hand of Calvin from his belief that by acknowledging one’s depravity leads to a proper knowledge of God. It portrays the sobering wisdom in confronting one’s own propensity to do evil. But, this ability to do evil does not condemn the individual. Rather, it places proper faith not in the hands of the naïve or ignorant but in the hands of those who know what their true nature is and choose to seek Truth in humility. From here, an honest inward acknowledgment of human nature as limited casts the individual’s gaze outward and upward as they come to an awareness of a need for communion with the Divine. For those satisfied with their illusions or those who are content with their convenient gods, this inherent need for union with something Other remains hidden in the suffering-wisdom of an inner-descent into one’s personal inferno.

Recently, there is hesitancy (and for a good reason) to over-glorify the suffering of Christ as it could lead to an over-spiritualization of physical suffering. As the pendulum swings away from seeing any value in the symbol of Christ’s passion — due to historical, spiritual perversion and Jesus Project “authenticating projects” — its ancient wisdom still resonates as a symbol of the individuation process. This is because individuation is not only for the reconciliation of inner conflicting opposites but also brings about a possibility for reconciliation with others[35]. This re-imagination of one’s involvement with the suffering and reconciliation portrayed in Christ’s passion are both manifested in the theme of dying-to-self that is portrayed masterfully in Martin Scorsese’s film, Silence.

Silence centers on Father Rodrigues’ journey of wrestling with the silence of God amidst the external realities around him. This struggle between internal desires and external acts takes shape in his relationship with Kichijiro. Father Rodrigues and Kichijiro are contrasted against each other as the Jesuit priest seeks the help of a poor Japanese fisherman who claims he is not a Christian to guide the missionaries safely into Japan. But, like a horseshoe, the wider the gap appears between the poor fisherman and the priest the closer they actually are to each other. This is due to how Kichijiro personifies the projections of Father Rodrigues’ fear and doubts in his own faith. Early on this contrast is depicted in the association of Rodrigues’ self and Kichijiro with the figures of Jesus and Judas. Father Rodrigues, with his proposed strong convictions of faith, sees himself as Christ in relation to the inconsistency and weakness of Kichijiro, who is seen as his own potential Judas. Throughout the film, Father Rodrigues understands his own suffering and fear of eventual betrayal paralleling with the passion of Christ. So much so, that in one scene while looking into a pool of water in a dehydrated hallucinatory state, Father Rodrigues realizes that his face has become conjoined with Christ’s “Ecco Homo.” His internalized belief of being like Christ is now externalized and further affirmed by Kichijiro’s betrayal for 300 pieces of silver. At this point of the film, Father Rodrigues is unaware of his projections being personified in Kichijiro and is further convinced of his Christ-like role. On one level, this could be seen as Father Rodrigues’ Ego being the same as his ideal or Self, which is indicated by his self-association with Christ. He is infantile in his illusion, further abhorring the weakness of Kichijiro by way of thinking that he is Christ and the other is Judas. Yet, Father Rodrigues’ self-placement contra Kichijiro eventually crumbles as he is forced to confront his own inner Judas.

Undergoing the constant tests and questions of the Japanese officials, Father Rodrigues stoops lower and lower into himself. In these moments of weakness, Kichijiro appears to Father Rodrigues. In one enlightening moment, Father Rodrigues is confined to his cell at night and is approached by Kichijiro begging for penance and the sacrament of reconciliation. But, Father Rodrigues is indignant towards Kichijiro and struggles to administer his priestly office. It is a powerful visual of Kichijiro’s weakness producing humility as Father Rodrigues’ “Christ-like” faith begets a hardened pride. The polarization of himself against his projections of fear and doubt prepares Father Rodrigues for his own Garden of Gethsemane moment as the paradigm of who he thinks he is and who he actually is implodes into itself when he eventually succumbs to his tests. The climax of the film takes place when Father Rodrigues faces the fumie, a 17th-century icon used to apostatize, and betrays his Christ by stepping on it. Father Rodrigues actively dies-to-self as his illusion of himself is confronted with his inner reality of being no different than Kichijiro. In this moment, it is confirmed that Father Rodrigues’ Ego is alienated from his idea of Self by the pain that came with acknowledging his own weakness and doubts. But as Father Rodrigues painfully comes to this realization, he also takes the first steps towards reconciliation. Within his perceived failure of faith and moment of betrayal, God finally speaks to Father Rodrigues and is no longer silent. The differentiating lines between Father Rodrigues and Kichijiro have been uprooted with his avowal of his own weakness and struggling faith causing Father Rodrigues to hear the formerly silent voice of God he so desperately longed for. Consequently, despite the external differences of Father Rodrigues forsaking his priestly office by becoming a Buddhist monk, he is changed internally. As the film ends, Father Rodrigues is able to interact with Kichijiro and see the humanity in him and once again administers the sacrament of reconciliation without the bitterness and pride that prevented him from doing so earlier in his cell. But this time, Kichijiro is seen as a devout believer as wholeness is now prized over a perfection of faith through the ability to see one’s full self and to view the other stripped of projections.

These powerful scenes portray the importance of accepting one’s formerly rejected aspects and display the benefits of undergoing the painful process of dying-to-self as the initial stepping-stone to reconciliation. Father Rodrigues’ personal passion coincides with the pain of realizing the alienation of the Ego from the Self and the arduous efforts taken to reunite the two. This call to self-denial, manifested in the willingness to give up the illusion that someone can be like Christ without accepting their inner Judas, resonates with Calvin’s claim that in order to know God requires a humility that comes from acknowledging the true nature of one’s self. It is from this humility that a proper appreciation and its corresponding approach to God’s majesty afford someone to accept their failures. It is an act that removes any intellectual idols of reason from the mantle, and humbly seeks union with God — not through an inflation of Ego performance but through a sober awareness of their self. Similarly, Jung’s view of confronting the Shadow could be equated to one’s spiritual death-to-self as the passion of the Persona acquiesces to the reality of the Shadow. In order for wholeness, both opposites must be confronted and incorporated through a process that removes the self-imposed blinders to one’s own inner self and a denial of an over-reliance on one’s convenient social mask.

Similar to Jung’s concept of integrating the Shadow, these two works articulate that there is no reconciliation without recognizing one’s complete self and there is no communion with the other and the holy Other when the illusion of a self-serving, convenient god is established on the shifting sands of an incomplete perception of self. By having an awareness of one’s Shadow, the true location of the self is brought to the forefront. To Jung, the Ego is made aware of its position to the Self, either as alienated or in an illusionary state of wholeness. For Calvin, the individual’s awareness of their depravity locates themselves as separated from and in utter need of communion with God. In Silence, Father Rodrigues had to be made aware of his own doubts and shortcomings to deny his status as Christ in order to allow God to be heard, which allowed Kichijiro to be stripped of any projections and caused him to finally be properly seen. All three allude to confronting one’s Shadow being the first step to reconciliation as it strips-away any illusion of the Ego or Persona being the totality of being — of being God. Through this death-of-self-as-God, the individual can now properly seek something holy Other as the former illusions are forsaken for reconciliation. In its place a new self-realization takes root that acknowledges its own rejected aspects as it seeks to unite these two opposing forces within one’s self. It is an act that makes way for reconciliation with others as the self is removed from the throne and properly placed in relation with the Other.

The notion of reconciliation coming from a death-of-self intersects with Jung’s concept of confronting and integrating the Shadow. In that, the need for reconciliation is dependent on how the individual views themselves in relation to their God-image. Because of the conflation between God-images and Self-images, the need to redefine one’s God-image after confronting one’s Shadow challenges conventional and convenient Christian understandings because of the proclivity to fashion in stone a God-image formed from an incomplete image of the self. Through the honest admittance of the real presence of repressed aspects and the capacity for evil within one’s self, there is a simultaneous dissolving of any illusion of a God-image that conveniently satisfies the desires and wants of an one-sided, incomplete self. This sobering realization properly places the self in proximity to God as the pride of perfection via Persona performance gives way to the humility of completion[36]. Similar to Martin Buber’s understanding of guilt and reconciliation[37], this call to die-to-self cries for the death of the illusion that isolates the individual from confessing their communal sins and illuminates their true self in intimate relation with humanity. The death of this convenient, one-sided, perfection demanding, Persona-centric deity becomes the salvific sacrifice made for reconciliation. It is a death-of-a-former-illusion that acknowledges the reality of chaos and the neglected aspects as legitimate aspects of the person, thus requiring one’s God-image and consequent Self-image to further evolve.

Not being satisfied with the glimpses of revelation, recent theological efforts have been trying to determine the face of God in order to know the entirety of the Divine, a knowledge rooted in unmasking and managing mystery. In its place, Christian communities have conveniently conjoined its own image onto the Mystery, not realizing that the beginning of understanding is the acknowledgement of the holy otherness of God. Like Father Rodrigues, this is a painful suffering but in its wake a resurrected God-image emerges that requires and values the honest acknowledgment one’s full self — the hidden and displayed, the mind and the body, the Us and the Them, the Good and the Evil. With the death of this convenient God — a death-of-self — a unifying relationship with the other and the Other is no longer inhibited by a pride emboldened by fear. Despite the differences in theological claims concerning the absolute existence of evil or the conflation of God and Self-images, there is still a benefit for everyone to be aware of the need to die-to-self in order to be in authentic relation with others. In its place a holy Other enshrouded in divine mystery is placed outside of but in relation to all life as we humbly submit and seek a God-image that is concerned with completion and relation. It is a reinstatement of Divine mystery that comes from confronting and acknowledging our true self, a reconciliatory place prepared for us in the intersection of Jung’s concept of the Shadow and the call to die-to-self. It is the delicate dance of seeing God in every person, while knowing that though the Divine spark rests at the apex of one’s soul, I am not the end all be all of evolved life. I am on my way upward via descent; I am something before I can be nothing and everything.

Bibliography

Buber, Martin, and Maurice S. Friedman. “Guilt And Guilt Feeling.” Essay. In CrossCurrents, №3ed., 8:193–210. Wiley, 1958.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 1. Library of Christian Classics, vols. 20–21. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Huskinson, Lucy. Nietzsche and Jung: The Whole Self in the Union of Opposites. Florence: Taylor & Francis Group, 2004.

Jung, C. G. “The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious.” In The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, edited by Gerhard Adler, translated by R. F. C. Hull, Part 1, Vol. 9. Bollingen Series XX. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1980.

Jung, C. G., and Joseph Campbell. The Portable Jung. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. New York, New York: Penguin Books, 1976.

Jung, C. G. “A Psychological Approach To The Dogma Of The Trinity.” In The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, edited by William McGuire, Vol. 11, 18: 5–96. Bollingen Series XX. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984.

Jung, C. G. “Christ, A Symbol Of The Self.” Essay. In Aion, 75–106. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1999.

Lammers, Ann Conrad. “A Study of the Relation Between Theology and Psychology: Victor White and C. G. Jung.” Dissertation, Yale University, 1988.

Palmer, Michael. Freud and Jung on Religion. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis Group, 1997.

[1] Jung, C. G. “A Psychological Approach To The Dogma Of The Trinity.” In The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, edited by William McGuire, Vol. 11, 18: 5–96. Bollingen Series XX. (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984), 53.

[2] Huskinson, Lucy. Nietzsche and Jung: The Whole Self in the Union of Opposites. (Florence: Taylor & Francis Group, 2004), 4.

[3] Jung, C. G. “The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious.” In The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, edited by Gerhard Adler, translated by R. F. C. Hull, Part 1, Vol. 9. Bollingen Series XX. (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1980),40.

[4] Jung, “A Psychological Approach To The Dogma Of The Trinity.” 53.

[5] Palmer, Michael. Freud and Jung on Religion. (Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis Group, 1997), 151.

[6] Huskinson, Nietzsche and Jung: The Whole Self in the Union of Opposites, 3.

[7] Jung, “The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious.” 490.

[8] Palmer, Freud and Jung on Religion, 145

[9] Jung, “A Psychological Approach To The Dogma Of The Trinity.” 53.

[10] Palmer, Freud and Jung on Religion, 119.

[11] Huskinson, Nietzsche and Jung: The Whole Self in the Union of Opposites, 44.

[12] Lammers, Ann Conrad. “A Study of the Relation Between Theology and Psychology: Victor White and C. G. Jung.” Dissertation, (Yale University, 1988), 245.

[13] Lammers “A Study of the Relation Between Theology and Psychology: Victor White and C. G. Jung.” 223.

[14] Huskinson, Nietzsche and Jung: The Whole Self in the Union of Opposites, 45.

[15] Ibid, 47.

[16] Ibid., Palmer, Freud and Jung on Religion, 119.

[17] Jung, “The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious.” 513.

[18] Jung, C. G., and Joseph Campbell. The Portable Jung. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. (New York, New York: Penguin Books, 1976), 147.

[19] Palmer, Freud and Jung on Religion, 149.

[20] Jung, The Portable Jung, 145.

[21] Jung, C. G. “Christ, A Symbol Of The Self.” Essay. In Aion, 75–106. (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1999), 90.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Jung, “The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious.” 513., Jung, “Christ, A Symbol Of The Self.” 106.

[24] Jung, “Christ, A Symbol Of The Self.” 90.

[25] Jung, “A Psychological Approach To The Dogma Of The Trinity.” 69.

[26] Palmer, Freud and Jung on Religion, 151 and 154.

[27] Ibid, 151.

[28] Jung, “A Psychological Approach To The Dogma Of The Trinity.” 64.

[29] Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 1. Library of Christian Classics, vols. 20–21. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 39.

[30] Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 105.

[31] Ibid, 39.

[32] Ibid, 37.

[33] Jung, “The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious.” 44. and Buber, Martin, and Maurice S. Friedman. “Guilt And Guilt Feeling.” Essay. In CrossCurrents, №3ed., 8:193–210. (Wiley, 1958), 201.

[34] Jung, “Christ, A Symbol Of The Self.” 82.

[35] Palmer, Freud and Jung on Religion, 145.

[36] Huskinson, Nietzsche and Jung: The Whole Self in the Union of Opposites, 61.

[37] Buber, “Guilt And Guilt Feeling.” 195.