A friend from Pacifica Graduate Institute asked the question: "Is it possible to hold to a particular way of viewing the world, in our case a Jungian Depth Psychological perspective, and not be a narrow minded reductionist bigot?" This is a a great question for our modern, internet, era. We have access to so many different points of view--can we possibly choose one and stand on it solidly? Can one be a Christian, Jungian, Freudian or Buddhist, Democrat or Republican, in this pluralistic world? Here is my response:
Just because one chooses and uses a particular lens by which to view and apply the myriad phenomena of myth, philosophy and religion, does not ipso facto make him/her an ignorant ideological reductionist. It does make him/her an informed ideological reductionist, but these are two very different positions. It is my view that every human is one or the other.
The purpose of this whole reduction/irreduction discussion is to warn the uninformed bigot that he/she ought to inform his/her bigotry. As I see it, all humans are bigots by the given condition of our self-limitations: "bigot" being a derogatory term applied by the French to the intolerant Normans, coming from two words: bi = by, and got = god, meaning something like, "This is the way it is, by my god (lens)!". A bigot is one who sees the world through his/her theological or ideological lens. There are conscious bigots who see they have a carefully chosen lens, and unconscious bigots who have no desire to peer through the lens of another. I have yet to meet anyone who is not one or the other. I'm sure the French would not have considered themselves bigots, but clearly they were, to the Normans! This is true of every religious or philosophical position, no matter which side of the aisle one is on. I have personally met as many uninformed liberal bigots as I have uninformed conservative bigots. Of course I am in the middle, which makes me a superior bigot.
In other words, one may seriously examine other perspectives re. myth, religion and philosophy--and still openly hold to a personal ideational and working weltanschauung. In addition to providing a depth psych. weltanschauung, the classes at Pacifica Graduate Institute attempt to broaden our horizon of world views. By the end of the religious studies course, the student ought to know what people like Comte, Durkheim, Weber, Marx, Berger and Stark think of a sociological approach to religion; how Freud and Jung view religion as primarily psychological; and how people like Kant, Schleiermacher, Otto and Eliade view religion as an experience of the sublime/sacred/holy; how Feminists, Black Liberationists and others re-vision religious phenomena, etc. But having an open mind does not preclude taking a particular position based on a persons current understanding of the material--or the material's understanding of the current person(ality). That is what makes our cohort, and life in general, so damn fascinating and frustrating. We are a bunch of expanding bigots--reduced irreductionists.
My main problem with most of the so called post-modern, academic, "open minded irreductionist deconstructionists" is their tendency to level the playing field to the point of being intellectually and practically useless and bland. We see this in the current politically correct blasé culture--an approach which is ironically very reductionist. In 1943 C.S. Lewis coined a term for the "open minded" educators who denied the possibility of finding Truth in a "reductionist" Platonic sense: he called them Urban Blockheads (The Abolition of Man). The derogatory term denoted their disingenuous crusade for absolute subjectivity (sic)--replacing True universals with personal and cultural "truths"--each to his/her own truths. They were urban (educated elitists) blockheads (brainless) because they denied the ubiquitous evidence for universal Truth. Only hicks from Bumfuck, Arkansas believe in universals. Lewis argues that humans generally intuitively gravitate toward similar epistemological and aesthetical universal Truths (like Beauty, Justice, Courage, etc.) by which to live. Jung saw himself as an empiricist in just this way, a scientist of psyche seeking universals without apology.
An archetypal perspective suggests, to me, that one ought to rigorously and openly explore each and every mythical and religious paradigm, yet not be afraid to land on Big Ideas that cross cultures--the Greek Logos, Hindu Rita, Chinese Tao, Hebrew Hokmah, Christian Christ and Muslim Sharia. The various particular systematic philosophical or theological formulations of each of these perspectives may not be 100% True, but each intuitively knows and seeks Truth as a real possibility. There is a sense in which all good science reduces research in the direction toward the "more-true" theories or conclusions through meticulous examination. Why apologize for moving from the exploration of irreducible phenomena toward truer reduced theories?, providing that one continues to re-search and re-vision.
Finally, I like the phrase, "non-exclusive particularism" which is sometimes employed by theologians when discussing pluralistic religious and mythological perspectives. This idea suggests a couple of things: first, that one may seriously examine and come to deeply understand other points of view, excluding none, allowing each to have its own clear voice and contribution to the human enterprise (informed irreduction). Secondly, non-exclusive particularism suggests the utility and necessity of consciously choosing a particular foundation upon which to stand in order to see and act in the world (informed reductionism). Jung always emphasized that good research brings one back into the world with a particular ethical view and moral position "to be lived". The notion of anima mundi recognizes the importance of taking a solid stance in the world. I think most Global Warming and non-Global Warming advocates are pretty particular about where they stand--and many in both camps are even exclusive!
Subliminal message: [Al Gore and Sean Hannity]
