7/27/2019 Man & His Environment

1/4

1

Man and His Environment

Hans Carol, a Swiss geographer from Zurich University, sought views on regional planning for the Cantonof Zurich from influential persons, among whom was Jung, who gave him a half-hour appointment inFebruary 1950. The subject so engrossed Jung that he kept Carol nearly an hour longer. Carol came

across notes of their conversation some years later and wrote them up for the Neue Zurcher Zeitungsliterary supplement, June, 1963; a slightly expanded account appeared in the magazine Landscape in1965. The following is reprinted from the anthology, Jung Speaking.

Carol: I would be grateful if you, as a leading psychologist, would comment on the subject of man and hisenvironment. Although we planners try not to look at the human being as a mere product of his physicalenvironment, we believe nonetheless that the environment is a crucial factor in human existence. Just asmen are influenced by education, they are surely also influenced by the environment society designs forthem.

Jung: I am very pleased that you are devoting your attention to this question. The abstract nature of workin a technological age leaves the worker dissatisfied. Dissatisfaction induces people to look forcompensation elsewhere. Suggestibility increases geometrically according to the number of personsinvolved. Mass mental disorder may reach epidemic proportions. Decentralization, on the other hand,allows for small social units. Every man should have his own plot of land so that the instincts can come tolife again. To own land is important psychologically, and there is no substitute for it. We keep forgettingthat we are primates and that we have to make allowances for these primitive layers in our psyche. Thefarmer is still closer to these layers. In tilling the earth he moves around within a very narrow radius, but hemoves on his own land. The industrial worker is a pathetic, rootless being, and his remuneration in moneyis not tangible but abstract. In earlier times, when crafts flourished, he derived satisfaction from seeing thefruit of his labor. He found adequate self-expression in such work. But this is no longer the case. First ofall, he is responsible for only a small part of the finished product. Secondly, the product is sold, itdisappears, and he has no further stake in it. Because the psychological reward is inadequate, the worker

rebels against his employer and against capitalism as a whole. We all need nourishment for our psyche.It is impossible to find such nourishment in urban tenements without a patch of green or a blossomingtree. We need a relationship with nature. I am just a culture-coolie myself, but I derive a great deal ofpleasure from growing of my own potatoes. People tend to look for the Kingdom of God in the outer worldrather than in their own souls. This is particularly true of socialism. Individuation is not only an upward butalso a downward process. Without any body, there is no mind and therefore no individuation. Our civilizingpotential has led us down the wrong path. All too often an American worker who owns only one carconsiders himself a poor devil, because his boss has two or three cars. This is symptomatic of pointlessstriving for material possessions.

Yet, we need to project ourselves into the things around us. My self is not confined to my body. It extendsinto all the things I have made and all the things around me. Without these things, I would merely be ahuman ape, a primate. Everything surrounding me is part of me, and that is precisely why a rentedapartment is disastrous. It offers so few possibilities for self-expression. In a standardized apartment, in astandardized milieu, it is easy to lose the sense of ones own personality, of ones individuality.

A community is based on personal relationships. No community can evolve where people can easily movehousehold from one place to another. The one-family house, the house owned by its inhabitants, is muchbetter because it necessarily engenders a sense of permanence.

If man has a hand in shaping his environment, it will reflect his personality. A Soviet collective farm lackssoul, and the people who live in it are a dull, unhappy lot because they have been deprived of anyopportunity for self expression

7/27/2019 Man & His Environment

2/4

2

A captive animal cannot return to freedom. But our workers can return. We see them doing it in theallotment gardens in and around our cities; these gardens are an expression of love for nature and forones own plot of land. As our working hours become shorter, the question of leisure time becomesincreasingly essential to us, time in which we are free of commands and restrains and in which we canachieve self-realization. I am fully committed to the idea that human existence should be rooted in theearth. (JS. PP. 201- 3)

7/27/2019 Man & His Environment

3/4

3

A Letter to E. Roenne Peterson

Carl G. Jung16 March 1953

Dear Sir,

Inseminatis artificalis could indeed become a public and legal problem in a society where a merelyrationalistic and materialistic point of view has become predominant, and where the cultural values as tothe freedom of human thoughts and of human relations have been suppressed. This danger is not soremote that one could disregard it. It is therefore a legimate question when one asks what the possibleconsequences of the practice of the said procedure might be.

From the standpoint of psychopathology, the immediate effect would be an illegimate, i.e., fatherlesspregnancy, in spite of the fact that fertilization took place in wedlock and under legalized circumstances. Itwould be a case ofunknown paternity. Since human beings are individuals and not exchangeable, thefather could not be artificially substituted. The child would suffer inevitably from the handicap ofillegitimacy, or of being an orphan, or of adoption. These conditions leave their traces in the psyche of the

infant.

The fact that artificial insemination is a well-known cattle-breeding device lowers the moral status ofhuman mother to the level of a cow, no matter what she thinks about it, or what she is talked into. As anybull having the desired racial characteristics can be a donor, so any man appreciated from the breededstandpoint is good enough for anonymous procreation. Such a procedure amounts to a catastrophicdevaluation of the human individual, and its destructive effect upon dignity is obvious. Having no practicalexperience in this matter, I do not know what psychological effect is of a conception brought about in sucha cold-blooded scientific way, and what a mother who had to carry the child of a total stranger would feel.I can imagine that the effect would be like that of rape. It seems to me to be in itself an ominous symptomof the mental and moral condition of our world that such problems have to be discussed at all.

Sincerely yours,C.G. Jung

7/27/2019 Man & His Environment

4/4

4

Zurhcer Ogrencisine bir Mektup(Federal Polytechnic Institute Zurich)

Carl. G. JungEylul 1949

Teknolojinin insan fizigi uzerine etkisi ile ilgili bana sordugun soru, seninde cok iyi hayal edebilecegin gibi,yanitlanmasi hicte kolay olmayan bir soru. Cok komplike bir problem.

Teknoloji insan tarafindan icat edilen kesin prosedurlerden olustugundan beri, bir sekilde insan semasinindisinda uzanan bir sey degil. Biri belki bu yuzden teknolojinin gereklilikleriyle bulusan mevcut da olaninsan adaptasyonunun kesin modlarinin sanisinda bulunabilir. Teknolojik aktivitiler cogunlukla ritmik

prosedurlerin tamamiyle ayni tekrarindan olusur. Bu hicbir zaman ritimsiz ve eslik eden nagme olmaksizinicra edilmeyen, ilkel isgucunun temel sablonuna tekabul eder. Ilkel, bu goreceli olarak icgudusel olanadam, monutonlugun olaganustu bir miktarina katlanabilir. O seyde onun icin hayranlik verici bir sey bilevar. Calismaya davulla eslik edildiginde, bir vecit duygusuna kadar kendini isitabilir yada eyleminmonotonlugu cokta nahos olmayan yari-bilincsiz bir duruma dusurur. Soru dogal olarak: Bu ilkeltekniklerin, herhangi bir zaman uzunlugu icin, kendini yari-bilincsiz yada vecidi durumlara geciremeyenmodern insan uzerindeki etkisi nedir?

Genel olarak modern insan icin, teknolojinin calismayla yada hayatla tatminsizlik doguran bir dengesizlikoldugu soylenilebilir. Insani, dogal her isi yapabilme yeteneginin eylemine yabancilastirir ve bu sebeptenpek cok icgudusunun nadasta yatmasina izin verir. Sonuc, calismak icin genel olarak artan bir direnis. Sifazannedilirse, sehirlerin sanayi saatlerini bir dort saatlik gune tasimak ve geri kalan zamani birinin kendimulku uzerinde ziraat calismasiyla harcamasi olabilirdi eger boyle bir seyin farkina varilabilseydi.

Isvicrede belki, zaman verilebilir. Dogal olarak bu devasa calisan nufuslarin varos zihniyetinden farkli,fakat bu kendisinin icinde bir problem.

Kendi faziletlerinde degerlendirildiginde, mesru bir insan aktivitesi olarak teknoloji, ne iyi nede kotu, nezararli nede zararsiz. Iyi icin yada hastalik kullanilip kullanilmadigi, sirasiyle teknolojiye bagli bir sekildetamamiyle insanin kendi davranisina bagli. Teknolojist, fabrika calisani gibi ayni problemin bir seyinesahip. Temel olarak mekanik faktorlerle yapacak bir seyi oldugundan beri, diger zihinsel kapasitelerinin birdumura ugrama tehlikesi var. Sadece dengesiz bir diyetin vucudu incitici olmasi gibi, uzun donemdeherhangi bir fiziki dengesizlik incitici etkiler yapar ve telafi ihtiyacindadir. Pratigimde, ozelliklemuhendislerin nasil, cok sik olarak filozofik ilgiler gelistirdigini inceledim ve bu siradan olmayan bir sekildesaglam bir reaksiyon ve telafi modu. Bu nedenle Federal Polytechnicteki Insani Fakulteler Kurumuna,boyle seylerin en azindan mevcut oldugunu, bu yuzden eger daha sonraki hayatta onlar icin bir ihtiyachissedecek olurlarsa, onlara geri donebileceklerini ogrencilere hatirlatmalarini her zaman oneriyorum.

Teknoloji, insan bilincinin gelisiminindeki herhangi diger bir akimdan daha fazla tehlike barindirmaz.Tehlike teknolojide degil fakat bekleyen kesif olasiliklarinda yatar. Suphesiz yeni bir kesif hicbir zamansadece iyi icin kullanilmayacak, fakat kesinlikle hastalik icin de kullanilacak. Bundan dolayi insan, egerkotu bir sekilde kullanilirsa kendisini yok edecek birseyi kesfetmenin riskini her zaman tasir. Atombombasiyla bunun cok yakinina geldik. Boylesi tehdit edici gelisimlerle yuzleserek, biri kendisine, bunlariyikici amaclara yonelik kullanma cekimine karsi, insanin direnebilmek icin yeterince neden ile ekipli olupolmadigini yada bunyesinin ona, felakete suruklenip suruklenmeme iznini verip vermeyecegini sormali. Buyalniz tecrubenin yanit verebilecegi bir soru.