|
A
Jungian Analysis of Nicholas Catherine Liggett “Know thyself’—excellent practical advice, that, and the only pity is, it didn’t occur to the ancients to tell us the technique of following it.” –Nicholas in “A Dreary Story” (Chekhov 139). From a Jungian perspective, the character Nicholas in “A Dreary Story” is dissociated from his Self due to over-identification with his dominant persona. Although the formation of personae, or social identities which “mask” the Self, is “an unavoidable necessity” (Jung 1983 94), as one begins to exclusively equate the persona(e) with identity, individuation becomes more difficult to achieve, because: “the onset of individuation is marked by a weakening of the persona” (Homans 24). According to Jung, all individuals must undertake a personal quest for individuation. This “quest” is the central point in Jungian psychology, and is, in essence, the establishment of a person as an indivisible “whole,” integrating conscious and unconscious potentialities of the psyche (Jung 1983 212). The need for individuation increases with the advent of old age, for “the meaning of life never becomes more urgent than at the moment of death” (Jung 1999b 4). Because of Nicholas’ strict adherence to his persona, the fact that he is dying creates intense unrest. As the opening statement illustrates, he desires to integrate himself, and hence give purpose to his existence, but has not the slightest idea where to begin. This oblivion arises from Nicholas’ complete disconnection from unconscious processes. The root of Nicholas’ neurosis is his dependence on his persona for identity. He associates his life only with his accomplishments, lamenting to Katya: For thirty years I’ve been a well-loved professor, I’ve had excellent colleagues, I’ve enjoyed honours and distinction. I’ve loved, I’ve married for love, I’ve had children. When I look back, in fact, my life seems a beautiful and accomplished composition. Now it only remains not to spoil the finale, for which purpose I have to die like a man. If death really is a menace, I have to meet it as befits a teacher, a scholar, and a citizen of a Christian country –confidently and with equanimity. But I’m spoiling the finale. I feel I’m drowning, I run off to you, I ask for help and –“Drown away,” say you, “that’s just what you should be doing.” (Chekhov 119) As exemplified by Nicholas’ feelings of desperation, identifying his life purely with his persona (his accomplishments, on this occasion) is fundamentally unsatisfying. The persona is “a mask for the collective psyche . . . that feigns individuality.” Hence, “in relation to the essential individuality of the person concerned it is only a secondary reality” (Jung 1993 175). Due to Nicholas’ identification with his persona, he exists in a reality that is “secondary” because it is superimposed upon the unconscious without being functionally integrated. Because Nicholas’ self-knowledge is derived solely from his persona, he fails to perceive any connection with unconscious forces, although “no matter how rigid the persona of a man might be, there still exist[s] for him an invisible system of relations with the unconscious” (Homans 105). This dissociation from the unconscious in favor of the persona is further intensified by the absence of a dream life. Nicholas states: “If anyone should ask me what constitutes the essential core of my life at the moment, I should answer insomnia” (Chekhov 93). For Nicholas, insomnia develops as follows: As a doctor, he is acutely aware of his proximity to death. The urgency of individuation increases accordingly, yet Nicholas has deeply habituated ignoring the unconscious, and out of fear for an increase in unconscious activity generated by the approach of death, he recoils from its most fruitful means of expression: dreams. Hence, insomnia results as a method to avoid integration of unconscious forces. Concerning this fear of unconscious processes in relation to the persona: “Outwardly an effective and powerful role is played, while inwardly . . . weakness develops in face of every influence coming from the unconscious” (Jung 1983 96). Because dreams are the primary source of knowledge of the unconscious (Jung 1983 182), Nicholas’ opportunities for integration are greatly decreased by his inability to sleep. After insomnia develops, Nicholas begins to notice peculiar changes in his way of thinking: Something is going on inside me—some process fit only for slaves. Day and night evil thoughts haunt me, feelings hitherto unfamiliar have settled in my heart—hatred, scorn, indignation, outrage, fear. I’ve grown excessively severe, exacting, irritable, disagreeable, suspicious . . . Has the world grown worse? And I better? Or was I blind before, and apathetic? (Chekhov 117-18) To answer Nicholas, he is experiencing these feelings because he is ‘forced’ by the despondency of his situation to increase his awareness. So fervent is his fear of the unconscious (reinforced by insomnia) that he is immersed solely in conscious life, and develops heightened awareness only of conscious processes. This disproportionate awareness is the source of his anxiety, for: These identifications with a social role are a very fruitful source of neuroses. A man cannot get rid of himself in favour of an artificial personality without punishment. Even the attempt to do so brings on . . . unconscious reactions in the form of bad moods, affects, phobias, compulsive ideas, backsliding, vices, etc. (Jung 1983 95) An example of this change in perception is Nicholas’ attitude toward lecturing. Prior to the onset of insomnia, lecturing gives him more enjoyment than any other activity, yet after insomnia develops, it becomes “sheer agony” (Chekhov 101). He describes the current experience of lecturing: My insomnia, and the strain of fighting my increasing weakness, has caused a strange thing to happen to me. In the middle of a lecture tears suddenly choke me, my eyes begin smarting, and I feel a furious, hysterical urge to stretch forth my arms and complain aloud . . . I want to shout that I’ve been poisoned. (Chekhov 102) Nicholas suffers because, on an unconscious level, he recognizes that his focus should be on coming to terms with his ultimate purpose, not on persisting to identify with his persona. However, “On the brink of death [his] interests are just the same now as they were twenty or thirty years ago—purely scientific and scholarly” (Chekhov 101) and he continues to lecture despite the discord it produces. This dissonance between thought and action is the conflict between his archetypal self and dominant persona. The “poison” that keeps Nicholas from lecturing is the unconscious force of the Self striving to find expression in Nicholas’ conscious life. In Jungian psychology, the Self is realized through archetypes (Stevens 28). Archetypes, which exert considerable influence on psychological life, are shared throughout humanity and en masse constitute the collective unconscious or the “common matrix of psychic existence” (Jung 1993 xxv). In this instance, Nicholas’ Self is desperately attempting to “give expression to a yet unrealized potential” in his mind through the archetype of the anima, a “potential that he shares in common with the entire human race” (Wink 4). This “potential” is integration, which Nicholas urgently needs to recognize. Similar to his dependence on lecturing, Nicholas is unable to communicate with others in ways that do not strictly coincide with his persona. He seems only to be able to dispense preconceived information that is determined by rigid moral standards, although his conscience (or archetypal self) advises against it. When faced with Katya’s decline, he impersonally advises: “one mustn’t seek the root of evil in actors, but more deeply—in the art itself, in society’s attitude towards it as a whole” (Chekhov 109). He admits to the “boring” and ineffective nature of his advice, yet remains unable to communicate more personally. Nicholas’ disproportionate devotion to rationality is a symptom of over-identification with his persona, for: “If the conscious ego identifies fully with the persona, then the individual becomes only a role . . . fully rational, and as a consequence the dimension of inner living—the unconscious—is repressed” (Homans 105). According to Jung, an old man who represses his unconscious processes is “a spiritual mummy who is nothing but a rigid relic of the past. He stands apart from life, mechanically repeating himself to the last triviality” (Jung 1999b 14) and “stands opposed to his own basic human nature” (Jung 1999b 16). Nicholas’ incapacity for personal communication coincides with his dearth of artistic imagination, in that both stem from a lack of inventiveness. Any sign of an active imagination points to an effective influence of the unconscious on conscious life, and Nicholas has no means to channel these forces. Katya illustrates this deficiency, saying to Nicholas: “You have no feel for art, no ear. You’ve been so busy all your life, you’ve had no time to cultivate this feel” (Chekhov 132). Indeed, Nicholas so often identifies his life with his persona that his unconscious mind has no means to express itself in artistic endeavors. To utilize the artistic imagination, one must tap into the active unconscious. Instead of drawing on this portion of his psyche, Nicholas consciously and habitually replaces it with his persona, an “arbitrary segment of the collective psyche” (Jung 1993 174). The persona “masks” the motivations of the collective psyche, and as such is not a source of individuality, or creativity. (For, instead of being formed exclusively by the collective unconscious, it is a role that is generated according to the demands of society.) Another striking aspect of Nicholas’ repression of the unconscious is his misogynistic tendencies. He routinely speaks of women as petty, hateful, and incapable of complex thought. Nicholas attributes women’s scornful attitude toward Katya’s illegitimate pregnancy “simply to woman’s backwardness” (Chekhov 112). After receiving a financial plan from Katya, he reflects: “Such schemes can originate only in a man’s brain, I feel” (Chekhov 108). This signifies a refusal of unconscious processes because by classifying women as incapable, he is irrationally rejecting the archetype of the anima, or the inner personality that is turned toward the unconscious. In the male psyche, this archetype is represented by a female figure and symbolizes “everything that should normally be in the outer [conscious] attitude, but is conspicuously absent” (Jung 1983 102). Hence, by rejecting women, Nicholas is further avoiding the integration of archetypes. However, even in a man as isolated as Nicholas, the unconscious finds means to surface. This is through Nicholas’ relationship with Katya, who serves as a projection of his anima. Jung states: “In all cases where there is an identity with the persona, and the soul [or anima] is accordingly unconscious, the soul-image is transferred to a real person” (Jung 1983 103). Nicholas and Katya’s relationship is without clear definition, for it is passionate, yet unlike a father-daughter, teacher-student, or love relationship. Regarding this indefinable nature, Jung states: “Whenever an impassioned, almost magical, relation exists between the sexes, it is invariably a question of a projected soul-image” (Jung 1983 104). When his family confronts him about the inappropriate nature of his and Katya’s relationship, he responds with fury: “‘Leave me alone!’ I shout in a voice unlike my own, ‘Leave me alone! Leave me!’” (Chekhov 130). Although Nicholas is consciously reacting to his family’s misguided belief that the relationship is sexual, the passion he expresses signifies a more deeply ingrained resentment. Katya and Nicholas seek purpose in each other, and seem to be completely emotionally dependent. As Nicholas cries spontaneously and finds himself in the “most unbearable state of mind,” there is only one place he thinks of going: “to Katya’s” (Chekhov 116). In turn, Katya goes to Nicholas in her most desperate moment: “I can’t go on living like this, really, Nicholas Stepanovich!” She beseeches, “Tell me quickly, for God’s sake, this very instant—what am I to do? Tell me what to do?” (Chekhov 140). Indeed, Jung describes the relationship between subject and projected anima as one of “almost total dependence” (Jung 1983 103). Katya, as a true projection of Nicholas’ anima, is everything his conscious mind is not. She leads a lavish, torpid existence, surrounding herself with comfort, flippantly spending money, and frequently occupying herself with reading fiction: “Were one to portray her surroundings,” Nicholas comments, “the picture’s dominant mood would be laziness” (Chekhov 110). Katya has a reputation for living loosely, having given birth to an illegitimate child and remaining unmarried. Conversely, Nicholas leads a rigorous existence, being an “eminent professor” whose “name as a scholar is free from blemish” (Chekhov 92). As regards writing, he states: “The simpler the subject the more agonizing the effort, oddly enough. I feel more at ease and more intelligent writing a learned article than when composing a congratulatory letter or memorandum” (Chekhov 93). Katya advises Nicholas to break the routines that perpetuate dependence on his persona, thus making the unconscious more likely to surface. She states: “you must make a clean break with your family and get away . . . [and] leave the university as well—what do you want with it? It makes no sense, anyway” (Chekhov 118). Nicholas is ultimately unable to live by Katya’s advice. Although he travels to temporarily ‘escape’ his routine, his persists in identifying himself with his persona even in his new surroundings. He remains indifferent and inert, proving that his identification with his persona is almost irrevocably entrenched. To conceive of Nicholas’ treatment is difficult, for his identity lies so deeply within his persona that reviving his attentiveness to unconscious processes is a complicated task. However, Nicholas must come to terms with himself, for: “The negation of life’s fulfillment is synonymous with a refusal to accept its ending” (Jung 1999b 13), and for Nicholas to experience Self-realization in individuation, he must cease repressing his unconscious mind. The process by which this is achieved is as follows: First, it is essential that Nicholas resume healthy sleeping habits. This allows archetypes to find expression in dreams. The shadow, or archetypal embodiment of an individual’s primitive, emotional nature, will reveal itself in Nicholas’ dreams and, as the most accessible archetype (Jung 1983 91) will establish the easiest path toward confrontation with the unconscious. Following Nicholas’ understanding of his shadow, the individuation process will continue with more direct engagement of the collective unconscious. This involves the confrontation of the anima, for to come to terms with the anima is “to become aware that there is an unconscious” (Homans 105). After this integration is complete, Nicholas will have come to terms with his unconscious mind. His confidence will be restored (Homans 107), and he will no longer identify himself completely with his persona, but with conscious as well as unconscious portions of his psyche. However, because this newfound identification with the Self is “inflating” in the sense that the individual may feel divinely empowered, the final stage of individuation involves the recognition of another figure of the collective unconscious: what Jung terms the “mana personality” or “god-imago” (Homans 107). The purpose of this archetype is the destruction of the inflated ego, or the renouncing of the wish to believe in oneself to an excessively high degree. With the integration of the mana personality, Nicholas will have reached individuation. He will no longer identify with his persona, for the process of individuation is, in essence, an eradication of the persona. Bibliography
Boeree, C.G. (n.d.). Personality Theories: Carl Jung. Retrieved July 16, 2002, from http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/jung.html. Chekhov, A. (1998). Trans. R. Hingley. Ward Number Six and other stories. New York: Oxford University. Homans, P. (1979). Jung in Context: Modernity and the Making of a Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago. Jung, C. (1966). Trans R. Hull. The Spirit In Man, Art, and Literature. New York: Bollingen. ———. (1971). Trans. J. Campbell. The Portable Jung. New York: Penguin. ———. (1983). Ed. A. Storr. The Essential Jung. Princeton: Princeton University. ———. (1993). Ed. V. Laszlo. The Basic Writings of C.G. Jung. New York: Random House. ———. (1999a). Trans. R. Hull. Symbols and the Interpretation of Dreams. Princeton: Princeton University. ———. (1999b). Ed. J. Yates. Jung On Death and Immortality. Princeton: Princeton University. Stevens, A. (1990). On Jung. New York: Penguin. Wink, P. (1999). Addressing End-of-Life Issues: Spirituality and Inner Life. Generations, 99(23), 75-81. Retrieved August 8, 2002, from EBSCO Host database.
|