When reading the chapters on Jungian analysis and how to apply it I found myself constantly picking at the theory. For example when Jung is quoted saying “the people and objects in dreams do not represent the people and objects they seem to be” I can’t help but think about my dreams which I really don’t think have that depth of meaning. I mainly dream that I’m writing exams and suddenly my pencil turns into a carrot or that I’m at a swim meet and I’m trying to hide from my coach because I missed my race. I think it’s pretty obvious that my dreams are just me being anxious about stressful events. I find that his theory is full of little ideas I disagree with such as the idea that when reading a fairy tale people tend to identify and imagine themselves as one of the character in a story. When I was little I always remember that if I liked a particular story I’d imagine myself as new a character in it. It was very rare for me to imagine myself as being an existing character in a story. It also bugs me that gender is so important in this analysis and that many assumptions are made about the qualities of both genders.

Nevertheless, despite my knit-picking, when applied to The Wizard of Oz and other narratives this theory produces interesting conclusions. I can see how this theory explains Dorothy’s journey throughout the story and how her character develops while she undergoes this experience. However I still find it strange that this theory was originally applied to dreams and meant to draw conclusions about real people. I feel that it works on a narrative because the characters “really” experience their journeys. I have a hard time believing that dreams can really affect people’s characters so deeply. Any thoughts? Did anyone else find themselves picking at this theory?

Comments Off on Skepticism on Pyscho-analysis