• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Jung was racist!!!!!!

Vendrah

New forum night mode looks cool!
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,768
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
In this morning I was... in shock! =O =( Utterly mad and disappointed at Jung, really really really really! I almost cried in anger...

I was reading Jung and then I stepped on a part that assembled politics, started to search about politics, then started to search about Jung controversies, and I got on an article that pointed out how Jung clearly was racist - and on a very stupid way. And, the worse, I know how things connects and I know how this had affected the MBTI as well. And this is NOT a post about the articles relating racism in the Myers side that was debatable and lack clarity...

So, here are the most important Jung racist quotes (THESE ARE ALL QUOTES FROM JUNG, MOST FROM BOOKS):

Powell says, 'The confusion of confusions is that universal habit of savagery - the confusion of the
objective with the subjective. 'Spencer and Gillan observe: 'What a savage experiences during a dream is
just as real to him as what he sees when he is awake.' What I myself have seen of the psychology of the
Negro completely endorses these findings

There is a much better hypothesis to explain the peculiarities of the American temperament. It is the fact
that the states are pervaded by the Negro, that most striking and suggestive figure. Some states are
particularly black, a fact that may astonish the naive European, who thinks of America as a white nation.
It is not wholly white, if you please, but piebald. It cannot be helped, it just is so.
What is more contagious than to live side by side with a rather primitive people? Go to Africa and see
what happens. When it is so obvious that you stumble over it, you call it going black. But when it is not
so obvious it is explained as 'the sun'... It is much easier for us Europeans to be a trifle immoral, or at
least a bit, because we do not have to maintain the moral standard against the heavy downward pull of
primitive life. The inferior man has a tremendous pull because he fascinates the inferior layers of our
psyche, which has liv-ed through untold ages of similar conditions ... He reminds us not so much of our
conscious as our unconscious mind - not only of childhood but of prehistory, which would take us back
not more than about twelve hundred years so far as the Germanic races are concern-ed

At the beginning of our era, three-fifths of the population of Italy consisted of slaves human chattels
without rights... The slave and his psychology flooded ancient Italy, and every Roman became in-wardly
a slave. Living constantly in the atmosphere of slaves, he became infected with their psychology. No one
can shield himself from this unconscious influence. Even today, the European, however highly
developed, cannot live with impunity among the Negroes of Africa; their psychology goes into him
unnoticed and unconsciously he becomes a Negro. There is no fighting against it. In Africa there is a
well-known technical expression for this: 'going black'. It is no mere snobbery that the English should
consider anyone born in the colonies, even though the best blood may run in his veins, 'slightly in-ferior'.
There are facts to support this view

Lecturer described a number of impressions he had gained on two journeys in north America. The
psychological peculiarities of the Americans exhibit features that would be accessible to psychoanalysis,
since they point to intense sexual repression. The reasons for repression are to be sought in the
specifically American complex, namely living together with the lower races, more particularly the
Negroes. Living together with the barbarous races has a suggestive effect on the laboriously subjugated
instincts of the white race and drags it down. Hence strongly developed defensive measures are
necessary, which manifest themselves in the particular aspects of American culture

Racial infection is a most serious mental and moral problem where the primitive outnumbers the white
man. America has this problem only in a relative degree, because the whites far outnumber the col-oured.
Apparently he can assimilate the primitive influence with lit-tle risk to himself. What would happen if
there were a considerable increase in the coloured population is another matter

We often discover with Americans that they are tremendously un-conscious of themselves. Sometimes
they suddenly grow aware of themselves, and then you get these interesting stories of decent young girls
eloping with Chinamen or with Negroes, because in the American that primitive layer, which with us is a
bit difficult, with them is decidedly disagreeable, as it is much lower down

Another thing that struck me was the great influence of the Negro, a psychological influence naturally,
not due to the mixture of blood. The emotional way the American expresses himself, especially the way
he laughs, can best be studied in the illustrated supplements of the papers; the inimitable Teddy
Roosevelt laugh is found in its primordial form in the American Negro. The peculiar walk with loose
joints, or the swinging of the hips so frequently observed in Americans, also comes from the Negro.
American music draws its main inspiration from the Negro, and so does the dance ... The vivacity of the
average American which shows itself ... in his extraordinary love of talking - the ceaseless gabble of American papers is an eloquent example of this - is scarcely to be derived from his Germanic forefathers, but is far more like the chattering of a Negro village. The almost total lack of privacy and the all devouring mass sociability remind one of primitive life in open huts, where there is complete identity with all members of the tribe ... This infec-tion by the primitive life can, of course, be observed just as well in other countries, though not to the same degree and not in this form. In Africa, for example, the white man is a diminishing minority and must therefore protect himself from the Negro by observing the most rigorous social forms, otherwise he risks 'going black'. If he succumbs to the primitive influence he is lost. But in America the Negro, just because he is in a minority, is not a degenerative influence, but rather one which, peculiar though it is, cannot be termed un-favourable - unless one happens to have a Jazz phobia

The Negro by his mere presence is a source of temperamental and mimetic infection ... I am quite
convinced that some American peculiarities can be traced directly to the coloured man, while others
result from a compensatory defence against his laxity. But they re-main externals leaving the inner quick
of the American character un-touched

These are the ones I had found critical the most. The article is here:
(PDF) The racism of Jung

And this article is from 1988, but I never saw this being mentioned on the community ever.
I did checked one or two of them and I confirmed their existence.

Influences on MBTI

The influences of this on MBTI are complex, but they do exist. But to explain and to proper understand it, I am going to point out to different reads and it is a long read. But I need to link to two big thread posts of mine (one I wasn't even planning to post - but now it is needed) to explain how and where this gets to MBTI.

First I define the undifferentiated "type" and that definition is needed, and I do it on this thread:
Jung Typology Explained

It seems that the undifferentiated "type" is spread in his many books. I only did catch the few most important sentences on Psychological types, and, of course, I had did linked with the enneagram and end up explaining it with a too much positive light when compared to the original material. The few quotes on the article relating the racism of Jung does have additional description of the primitive type in Jung and what Jung did understood as primitive, and, what I didn't really know, who and where Jung did based on and had as reference for "primitive".

But I must complement that with two passages:

Jung on Sensation said:
Sensation is strongly developed in children and primitives, since in both cases it predominates over thinking and feeling, though not necessarily over intuition

Jung on Intuition said:
Like sensation, intuition is a characteristic of infantile and primitive psychology. It counterbalances the powerful sense impressions of the child and the primitive by mediating perceptions of mythological images, the precursors of ideas (q.v.).

So, yeah, this may be new to you, but Jung consider T-F doms/T-F types superior to the N-S doms/N-S ones. But it was more towards the S side rather than on the N side, as this quote here appears to point to (from the '88 article above):

the anti thesis of abstraction ... the meaning of concrete is grown together ... Primitive thinking and
feeling arc entirely concreistic; they are always related to sensation. The thought of the primitive has no
detached independence but clings to material phenomena. It rises at most to the level of analogy.
Primitive feeling is equally bound in material phenomena. Both depend on sensation and are only slightly
differentiated from it. Concretism is therefore an archaism

Just in case you haven't know, a S-dom type has thinking and feeling undifferentiated and partially unconscious, so that relates to a S-dom. So, part of the "Sensor hate" has origins right on the source (just found out that today).

But now comes the other problem: Si. The Si type, the Si as posted in Jung, not the adapted versions people post out there (so i am not speaking about the Si you are familiar with). As I explain on this thread:

Jung Si explained, theory about the Jung Si type

The Si type on Jung does engage on the replacement of what is objectively real with internal psyche images, and that relates to illusion and hallucination. One say that any type on the extreme have properly disorders, and I say yes to that, but the replacement of what is real with internal psyche images is something that, even in small degrees of differentiation, is something that is already unhealthy, and unsustainable for real life. Even the Ni type and the others know how to discern what is real and what is not. That means that, for this type to properly adapt to the environment, it needs to be less differentiated than usual. There is also trace of this into what Jung understands as primitive (from the '88 article):

The instinctive sensuousness of the primitive has its counterpart in the spontaneity of his psychic
processes: his mental products, his thoughts, just appear to him as it were. It is not he who makes them or
thinks them - he is not capable of that - they make themselves, they happen to him, they even confront
him as hallucinations

Powell says, 'The confusion of confusions is that universal habit of savagery - the confusion of the
objective with the subjective. 'Spencer and Gillan observe: 'What a savage experiences during a dream is
just as real to him as what he sees when he is awake.'
What I myself have seen of the psychology of the
Negro completely endorses these findings

This influences the MBTI, specially how it was started... As we know, the MBTI since the beginning always gives everybody around a type, but as I did explained in "jung typology explained", jung typology was never meant to give everyone at sight a type - as I explained in stages of differentiation on the notes, there is the notion of not having a type, just having one dominant function, etc.... However, the MBTI always forced a type - a "fully differentiated type" - probably since the very beginning. This, combined with the strong likelyness (I have strong arguments but I didn't prove) healthy people that fit the Si type being less differentiated than the others, make Si start to abduct traits that are related to the undifferentiated type, and this means initially ISXX, or maybe already (which is most likely) ISXJ, starting to abduct traits from the undifferentiated type.

And what that means? Well, the facet and aspect that is most distorted on MBTI is the Traditional one. On MBTI, S is associated with tradition, yet if we think Sensation as a function got nothing to do with being traditional. For example, being on the present moment has a lot do with sensation; being practical too; but being traditional don't relate to Sensing per se at all - this was abducted from statistics that did show that sensors were traditional, and the statistics did show that because the Si types were less differentiated and started to abduct traits related to undifferentiation. This gave the negative "stereotype" of ISTJ/ISFJ being highly traditional (a lot of Si descriptions you might read had also connected traditions with Si as well), and in the end this ends up being an important trait of the ISTJ/ISFJ profiles. Did you ever were introduced to that notion of ISTJ/ISFJ being like ants who works following the orders and traditions and all of that? This all comes from the undifferentiated "type", which comes from the archaic notions, so, basically, so sensors major descriptions started to carry traits from the undifferentiated type from Jung, and Jung associates undifferentiation with being primitive and archaic. Doubts? Well, this is the traditional facet description:

The Sensing-Intuition Facets


The five facets of the Sensing-Intuition dichotomy are Concrete-Abstract, Realistic-Imaginative, Practical-Conceptual, Experiential-Theoretical, and Traditional-Original.

(...)

Traditional

People at this pole prefer doing things in established ways that are shared by most other people. It is appealing to them to rely on the security that comes from fitting in with a community or group. They like the feeling of belonging to or being part of something larger than themselves. This preference involves one's entire lifestyle, not merely specific tasks. It includes style of dress, choice of charities, type of housing, and recreational and leisure activities. Traditional people find the conventional appealing in many respects. Convention offers ways of doing things that are continually validated by the social environment. When they see others living in similar ways, Traditional people are assured that their manner of living is valued and correct. They receive immediate confirmation that their way of living is "on target" by checking it against their social surroundings. As a result they are uncomfortable going against the grain of custom, culture, and traditional norms. Tradition is associated with what is good.

For the Traditional person, fads are suspect because they don't have the validating test of time and experience. Fads also lack the societal breadth and depth that occur when traditional styles and customs are followed. Following a fad is not a effective way of achieving the stable and comfortable relationship to one's environment that comes from acting in accord with the traditional styles and customs of one's group. Another avenue to such stability is to follow family traditions, which affirms one's role and relationships among one's kin. Such traditions provide self-definition and give meaning to one's own and one's family members' lives. Traditional people greatly respect tradition and change their ways only reluctantly. For change to be acceptable, it must be grounded in what was done before and must proceed gradually. For Traditional people, deliberate changes made just for the sake of change are meaningless at best. At worst they may destroy cherished meanings that are the foundations of social, organizational, and family life. Traditions are ways of honoring or appreciating what is right and good. Traditional people admire those who can serve as solid role models for behavior and are interested in passing down their traditions to the next generation. They are often perplexed when the next generation is unappreciative of treasured traditions. [From: ]Attention Required! | Cloudflare

This above is simply this below on a positive light:

The further we go back into history, the more we see personality disappearing beneath the wrappings of collectivity. And if we go right back to primitive psychology, we find absolutely no trace of the concept of an individual. Instead of individuality we find only collective relationship or what Lévy-Bruhl calls participation mystique. The collective attitude hinders the recognition and evaluation of a psychology different from the subject’s, because the mind that is collectively oriented is quite incapable of thinking and feeling in any other way than by projection. What we understand by the concept “individual” is a relatively recent acquisition in the history of the human mind and human culture. It is no wonder, therefore, that the earlier all-powerful collective attitude prevented almost completely an objective psychological evaluation of individual differences, or any scientific objectification of individual psychological processes. (...) The development of individuality, with the consequent psychological differentiation of man, goes hand in hand with the de-psychologizing work of objective science.

This also influences on reverse for the ENFP type and probably ENTP as well.

NOTE: I did connected the enneagram type 6 with the undifferentiated type. Well, the type 6 basic Fear: Of being without support and guidance & basic Desire: To have security and support, does relate with being on hostile conditions that threats life itself - this, in turns, connects to a more primitive life environment, and can be seem as a mere reaction, instinctual one likely, of primitive conditions, not a cause of it per se.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,639
Who gains from the pushing of the whole "Jung was racist" idea again?

I really doubt if he'd been a racist that he'd have been quite to hot on eastern philosophy, culture, traditions and written in such glowing terms about them or that westerners where incapable of achieving the kinds of enlightenment that indian Yogis possessed.

Kind of surprised that you never heard anyone write about this before since Mole has been a broken record about it pretty much. The whole Jung was a racist is as tired as the Jung was an anti-semite and Jung was a coward narratives which have been wheeled out since Freud's disowning him.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Guardian of Ga'Hoole
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
16,591
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Who gains from the pushing of the whole "Jung was racist" idea again?

I really doubt if he'd been a racist that he'd have been quite to hot on eastern philosophy, culture, traditions and written in such glowing terms about them or that westerners where incapable of achieving the kinds of enlightenment that indian Yogis possessed.

Kind of surprised that you never heard anyone write about this before since Mole has been a broken record about it pretty much. The whole Jung was a racist is as tired as the Jung was an anti-semite and Jung was a coward narratives which have been wheeled out since Freud's disowning him.

Didn't he advise the U.S. government on Hitler's psychology? I'm pretty sure I found some evidence of this. I don't doubt Jung was not 100% politically correct (kind of an unreasonable thing to expect when reading the writings of historical figures anyway), but I haven't found a great deal of evidence that he was a dyed-in-the-wool Nazi beyond being German-speaking at that particular point in time. Just because I speak English doesn't mean that I supported Donald Trump, lol.

Anyway, I have to laugh at the idea of someone who champions Freud criticizing Jung for being unscientific. From the point of view of modern scientific methodology, they're both not great.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,646
And here I thought Mole had graduated to using exclamation points after a decade of dragging Jung through the fecal matter.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
46,859
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, bless you for keeping NP in your MBTI description... !
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,639
Didn't he advise the U.S. government on Hitler's psychology? I'm pretty sure I found some evidence of this. I don't doubt Jung was not 100% politically correct (kind of an unreasonable thing to expect when reading the writings of historical figures anyway), but I haven't found a great deal of evidence that he was a dyed-in-the-wool Nazi beyond being German-speaking at that particular point in time. Just because I speak English doesn't mean that I supported Donald Trump, lol.

Anyway, I have to laugh at the idea of someone who champions Freud criticizing Jung for being unscientific. From the point of view of modern scientific methodology, they're both not great.

That is true to a certain extent but Jung was much more a proponent of the scientific method, crazy and all as that may seem, and borrowed way more from medicine than Freud did. Not least the idea of a homeostasis applying to the mind as much as the body and the mind-body relationship itself/embodied minds.

Like Freud definitely did not believe that psychological health was achievable without analysts intervention, Jung knew that the mind and body strive for well being and that analysts just help it along at best. That is not even the whole of it, though its all pretty mundane and Jung's more zany ideas seem to be what people seize upon or recall the most.

Jung repeatedly said that he was an individualist and disliked any sort of groupthink left or right so he definitely wasnt friendly towards the nazis, he wasnt anti-semite or racist either and those are hard to maintain if you know anything about his writings, like he may have used terms like savage, it wasnt uncommon at the time and place but Jung was always pretty flattering of what was commonly described as that way. Jung's probably one of the biggest fans of indigenous peoples there's ever been.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,299
It has become indelicate to speak of this, it has become indelicate to save the feelings of the victims who were Jewish women.

But like many of his comrades on the evil side in WW II, they sexualised their anti-semitism. Jung, for instance, sexually abused his Jewish female patients.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,639
It has become indelicate to speak of this, it has become indelicate to save the feelings of the victims who were Jewish women.

But like many of his comrades on the evil side in WW II, they sexualised their anti-semitism. Jung, for instance, sexually abused his Jewish female patients.

On cue Mole with the lie that never dies :D:D:D:D
 

Vendrah

New forum night mode looks cool!
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,768
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
Who gains from the pushing of the whole "Jung was racist" idea again?

I really doubt if he'd been a racist that he'd have been quite to hot on eastern philosophy, culture, traditions and written in such glowing terms about them or that westerners where incapable of achieving the kinds of enlightenment that indian Yogis possessed.

Kind of surprised that you never heard anyone write about this before since Mole has been a broken record about it pretty much. The whole Jung was a racist is as tired as the Jung was an anti-semite and Jung was a coward narratives which have been wheeled out since Freud's disowning him.


That is true to a certain extent but Jung was much more a proponent of the scientific method, crazy and all as that may seem, and borrowed way more from medicine than Freud did. Not least the idea of a homeostasis applying to the mind as much as the body and the mind-body relationship itself/embodied minds.

Like Freud definitely did not believe that psychological health was achievable without analysts intervention, Jung knew that the mind and body strive for well being and that analysts just help it along at best. That is not even the whole of it, though its all pretty mundane and Jung's more zany ideas seem to be what people seize upon or recall the most.

Jung repeatedly said that he was an individualist and disliked any sort of groupthink left or right so he definitely wasnt friendly towards the nazis, he wasnt anti-semite or racist either and those are hard to maintain if you know anything about his writings, like he may have used terms like savage, it wasnt uncommon at the time and place but Jung was always pretty flattering of what was commonly described as that way. Jung's probably one of the biggest fans of indigenous peoples there's ever been.

I am surprised in a negative way how much denial we are having here - this is being treated like I am saying that earth is flat.
Look at the quotes I had put it, at the article's saying, there are plenty of quotes that are taken away from his books. I checked two of them and to my disgust they exist. If this doesn't sound racist to you, then I think there is barely anything that can sound racist to you ever:

Racial infection is a most serious mental and moral problem where the primitive outnumbers the white
man. America has this problem only in a relative degree, because the whites far outnumber the col-oured.
Apparently he can assimilate the primitive influence with lit-tle risk to himself. What would happen if
there were a considerable increase in the coloured population is another matter

The Negro by his mere presence is a source of temperamental and mimetic infection ... I am quite
convinced that some American peculiarities can be traced directly to the coloured man, while others
result from a compensatory defence against his laxity. But they re-main externals leaving the inner quick
of the American character un-touched

If I am being ridiculous to label these two quotes as racist and the others ones that comes with them, then, honestly, I don't know what is really racist anymore. And I am NOT really affirming this to defend or attack Freud, neither that article has anything said about the Jews or the Nazis. My biggest shock is exactly because I like some of his ideas, I would be less in disappointment if I didn't.

Well, bless you for keeping NP in your MBTI description... !

Well, bless you for making this a personal issue on me and a type issue for me...!
Whatever you meant good or bad by that I am throwing it back at you...!
 

Methylene

Now with less salt.
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
1,826
MBTI Type
LGBT
Enneagram
639
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
So, yeah, this may be new to you, but Jung consider T-F doms/T-F types superior to the N-S doms/N-S ones

Jung was an asshole, we know that.
To get out of pseudo science, the areas of the brain connected to judgement (not MBTI J, nor T or F) only develop later in life. Ie: they're still undeveloped in teens. So, viewed from this perspective, that statement is actually onto something.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
46,859
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, bless you for making this a personal issue on me and a type issue for me...!
Whatever you meant good or bad by that I am throwing it back at you...!

Well... honestly...is this shocking to you? Washington owned slaves, you know. And I'm kind of confused why you're using MBTI type if you're upset to the degree you seem to be.

I am thumb-typing on phone, so... no elaboration. Aside from who gives a shit what Jung meant by it. I don't use the system that way or view people via type that way, nor do you have to either.
 

Red Memories

Haunted Echoes
Joined
Jun 3, 2017
Messages
6,318
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
215
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Ugh at everyone's stupidity in this thread.
[MENTION=32874]Vendrah[/MENTION] for real though, I am sorry you discovered such features and feel so poorly of it.

Certainly, as Freud's sort of open doors and captivations into psychology are not tossed aside because he was a strange individual, it is not necessary to destroy all of the personality psychology idea. Jung merely opened a door of thought. This thought can be debated and built upon. Certainly, even intellectuals can be wrong and you can still find valuable aspects of the theory AND acknowledge Jung was in fact a racist piece of garbage. I hope you find some peace from this difficult revelation. I only know sort of outsider knowledge of MBTI data. It is something to be built upon perhaps without such racial biases. I hope we continue to grow in such a way.

As to the rest of this. I see a great deal of rude and needless hostility. It isn't so foreign for someone who had dedicated a piece of their life to learning and admiring the work of another person to feel hurt when they discover something very ugly within there. I would hope it would be a positive that he realized this philosophy isn't okay rather than maybe blindly sheeping and going well if Jung said it... There is no need for this attitude and taunting of someone's feelings. Obviously, he did not previously know this data.
 

Luminous

༻✧๖αη-∂яασι∂н✧༺
Joined
Oct 25, 2017
Messages
9,691
MBTI Type
Iᑎᖴᑭ
Enneagram
952
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well said [MENTION=33903]Red Memories[/MENTION]
 

noname3788

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
150
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
It would be fair to judge Jung with he morals of his time, not of todays. Racism was widely spread during the early 20th century, especially in the highly developed western states, and Jung isn't anything special. Also, do you guys know about eugenics? It's basically turning racism into a science, and no, it was not limited to facist states like Nazi Germany, and the idea of optimising a races gene pool was widely spread across the world.

Wikipedia said:
While eugenic principles have been practiced as early as ancient Greece, the contemporary history of eugenics began in the early 20th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom,[6] and then spread to many countries, including the United States, Canada,[7] and most European countries. In this period, people from across the political spectrum espoused eugenic ideas. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations' genetic stock. Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. Those deemed "unfit to reproduce" often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges on different IQ tests, criminals and "deviants", and members of disfavored minority groups.

The eugenics movement became associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust when the defense of many of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials of 1945 to 1946 attempted to justify their human-rights abuses by claiming there was little difference between the Nazi eugenics programs and the U.S. eugenics programs.[8] In the decades following World War II, with more emphasis on human rights, many countries began to abandon eugenics policies, although some Western countries (the United States, Canada, and Sweden among them) continued to carry out forced sterilizations.

Eugenics - Wikipedia

Jung was hardly the only racist of his time by today's standards.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,639
It would be fair to judge Jung with he morals of his time, not of todays. Racism was widely spread during the early 20th century, especially in the highly developed western states, and Jung isn't anything special. Also, do you guys know about eugenics? It's basically turning racism into a science, and no, it was not limited to facist states like Nazi Germany, and the idea of optimising a races gene pool was widely spread across the world.



Eugenics - Wikipedia

Jung was hardly the only racist of his time by today's standards.

I think its possible to exaggerate how racist the past was, anti-racism and most of the universal thinking which understand humankind is a single, diverse race/species is as old as time.

Also eugenics can be sinister, medical science or science per se can be sinister, when its separated from conscience. Although much of what was good about eugenics has actually been integrated into medical science in other ways, such as knowledge of hereditary illness and its causes. I think some of the ideas within eugenics are good and thinking of the social impact of individual lives is not a bad thing at all.

The awareness shouldnt result in inflicting deliberate harm or suffering on individuals and for many awareness of social impacts of their individual behaviour is not going to stop that behaviour but some sorts of knowledge do influence behaviour. If you had a biometric ID which allowed you to know whether or not that potential partner in the neighbourhood is actually a close genetic type would you want to have children with them? Would you want to be physically intimate with them?

At the moment people usually only discover after the fact when medics have to have conversations about just exactly why peoples offspring might be experiencing particular physical illness or disability. Some people dont care but some people do. If they had the information they'd act differently. It occurs at the moment because of incest but it also occurs because of undiscovered cheating partners conceiving children in other households like some kind of cuckoo.
 

Vendrah

New forum night mode looks cool!
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,768
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
Well... honestly...is this shocking to you? Washington owned slaves, you know. And I'm kind of confused why you're using MBTI type if you're upset to the degree you seem to be.

I am thumb-typing on phone, so... no elaboration. Aside from who gives a shit what Jung meant by it. I don't use the system that way or view people via type that way, nor do you have to either.

Yes, it was schocking...
Well, I just found out that morning.
I still like the typology whole thing, you know? The types, it did helped me to "discover my own personality" and all, it is fun and all, just being cliche but short.

Ugh at everyone's stupidity in this thread.

[MENTION=32874]Vendrah[/MENTION] for real though, I am sorry you discovered such features and feel so poorly of it.

Certainly, as Freud's sort of open doors and captivations into psychology are not tossed aside because he was a strange individual, it is not necessary to destroy all of the personality psychology idea. Jung merely opened a door of thought. This thought can be debated and built upon. Certainly, even intellectuals can be wrong and you can still find valuable aspects of the theory AND acknowledge Jung was in fact a racist piece of garbage. I hope you find some peace from this difficult revelation. I only know sort of outsider knowledge of MBTI data. It is something to be built upon perhaps without such racial biases. I hope we continue to grow in such a way.

As to the rest of this. I see a great deal of rude and needless hostility. It isn't so foreign for someone who had dedicated a piece of their life to learning and admiring the work of another person to feel hurt when they discover something very ugly within there. I would hope it would be a positive that he realized this philosophy isn't okay rather than maybe blindly sheeping and going well if Jung said it... There is no need for this attitude and taunting of someone's feelings. Obviously, he did not previously know this data.

Thanks! Well said!

It would be fair to judge Jung with he morals of his time, not of todays. Racism was widely spread during the early 20th century, especially in the highly developed western states, and Jung isn't anything special. Also, do you guys know about eugenics? It's basically turning racism into a science, and no, it was not limited to facist states like Nazi Germany, and the idea of optimising a races gene pool was widely spread across the world.



Eugenics - Wikipedia

Jung was hardly the only racist of his time by today's standards.

I think eugenics and this might be a little bit different, since eugenics seems to be a more generic term (and it can fit a lot of things and be biased to fit many things)... Jung against coloured people is seemly absolute, its a case of all and none.
 

mancino

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Messages
84
[MENTION=32874]Vendrah[/MENTION], I empathize with your deep hurt. It's hard when you find your Master is not perfect.
But remember, we value Masters for what they teach us, insofar it helps us to grow.
Remember the raft parable by Buddha.
Many great thinkers taught to THINK, not to trust the Master himself! Socrates comes to mind in that regard. He said he knew nothing...

So, don't be sorry for Jung being wrong. He was a human being, right on something, wrong on something else. Just follow him in what you feel is worth following.

Anyways, I agree with [MENTION=33903]Red Memories[/MENTION]: too bad people bash your hurt, [MENTION=32874]Vendrah[/MENTION], or make it personal.

And [MENTION=39780]noname3788[/MENTION] is onto something: you can't judge Jung by today's moral standards. A good example would be how women were treated in the past. Anybody who lived more than one century ago would be deemed misoginist or sexist by today's standard. But that doesn't mean we have to throw all the history of thought to garbage.
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Pretty much everyone was a racist back then.


Now, we of course know that differences in race are in fact completely negligible. And that environment and opportunity (and not difference in biology) are actually the main drivers of intellectualism among the human race. And while Jung's statements wouldn't just be wrong now, they'd be ignorant. But these views hadn't been developed yet.

People tend to think they know it all and they have full access to the truths of the world, but the reality is that me, you and everyone else are cosmically ignorant. But that's fine, that's why we need to keep striving to become better.
 
Top