What are the key similarities and differences between Freud and Jung’s theories of dreams?

IntroductionHistoric each(prenominal)y, pipe daydreams get often been given cultural signifi raisece every over the world, and various speculations abound on the origin and function of this intriguing phenomenon. However, it was the pioneering work of Freud in the late 19th Century which truly revolutionised the vogue dreams be discussed in much modern discourse. Although as a surmise it is unfalsifiable and does non easily lend itself to empirical investigation, it subsequently remains jolly outside of the conventional scientific approach to the study of psychological phenomena, as do the ideas of Jung. Psychodynamic theories have nonetheless been influential particularly with regard to dreams since their engage purpose and the genesis of their content is not demonstrably explicable in ground of mechanistic perspectives on sleep and mind. Clearly because these theories orison to stack, and they have resulted in psychotherapeutic methods of analysis that have been help ful to many people (Freud, 1940). With this in mind, this essay will seek to establish the single contributions of Freud and Jung, w here(predicate) they concur and where their theories come into conflict. In order to do this each opening must first be outlined. Freud ascribed a crucial central pose of dreams in his over enti assert model of the head (Jones, 1913). He saw dreams as indicative of pathologies and emotions inciteing certain aliveness, either directly or done the action of his proposed concept of the un certain(p) mind. Freud believed that in fact the majority of the mental processes politics an individualists thoughts, feelings and in that respectfore behaviour, take place in the unconscious mind mind, and that an intrinsic censor keeps these processes and underlying drives from conscious awareness (Freud, 1922). This unconscious-conscious distinction is necessary, Freud argues, because the feelings elicited by conscious knowledge of true motivational d rives and internal struggles would be inconceivable, and at that placefore these must be hidden in the unconscious. These unacceptable notions just now become available to consciousness in trans croped appearance graceful something analogous but to a greater extent acceptable to the individual. nonpareil of the radical ways Freud supposed that the unconscious communicated its contents to the conscious mind was via dreams. The actual go by dint of content of dreams Freud names the manifest content, whereas the true intend of the dream as it is stored in the unconscious was dubbed the latent content (Freud, 1900). Through the method of psychoanalysis, utilising much(prenominal) proficiencys as free association and projective methods using external stimuli, such as the Rorschach inkblot test, Freud believed the latent content of dreams could be uncovered, and that the revelation of this information In the light of consciousness could either(a)eviate many neurotic symptoms (Fenichel, 2006). As further as Freud was concerned, dreams communicate their message by means of figureic means. Images encountered in dreams set up some aspect of the dreamers psyche and their interpretation can result in profound insights into the inner life of an individual. For Freud, the meaning of sure dream symbols could be ubiquitous surrounded by individuals if one person was conceive of of the Eiffel chromatography column then this could be interpreted in much the equivalent way as if another person were in addition dreaming of the Eiffel towboat. The completely way the interpretation would differ would be in regard to the dream context that is, the place the object of the Eiffel tower occupied in coincidence to other dream objects, the motifs and themes involved in the dream as hygienic as more ambient feelings surrounding dream objects. Therefore, two dreams involving the Eiffel tower could be interpreted quite differently, but the symbolic Eiffel tower co uld be said to have similar if not synonymous meaning amongst persons, according to Freud (1954). A key aspect of Freuds theory of the unconscious is that the swelled head (the symbolic self) develops defence mechanisms to protect itself from thoughts and feelings that it finds unacceptable, typic all toldy these are feelings of inadequacy, complaisant comparisons or unbearable desires of some kind. This arsenal of defence mechanisms includes repression, denial, sublimation and projection. This list is not comprehensive but these are the primary mechanisms by which feelings that are deemed ill to the ego are exiled to the unconscious (Freud, 2011). In Freuds theory, these unconscious desires and feelings then manifest themselves symbolically in dreams through almost universally identifiable and interpretable symbols. Another aspect of this theory is that dream objects whitethorn form categories. In other words, different but perhaps similar objects may mean the same thing in ter ms of latent content. One classic example of a semantic category of this kind is phallic symbols essentially anything cylindrical is often interpreted to denote a phallus, or more abstract power (Orrells, 2013). The dream analysis would then extend with the latent content supplanted in the place of the manifest content, and the true meaning of the dream could be interpolated depending on the dream context. Freud was essentially working towards an comprehensive knowledge of the meaning behind each dream symbol (Freud, 1900) and although there was some acknowledgement that these symbols could be jibeed differently between different people, much of his theory lacks generalizability. This point becomes especially relevant when it is remembered that his theory was developed using exactly qualitative data obtained from neurotics (Freud, 1922). As a contemporary of Freuds, Jung developed his theories elephantinely without his in point. When the two met they found that most of their ideas regarding the unconscious and its boldness in dreams were compatible if not identical. However, there were some key areas of deflexion chiefly there are new concepts introduced by Jung, and disagreements over the admit nature of the unconscious. Despite specific differences, there is no denying the striking analogy of the theories with regard to the genesis of dreams, the structure of the individual psyche and to a large extent the interpretation of dream content. Freud and Jung agreed that dreams harbour feelings, thoughts and desires which are unacceptable or painful to conscious awareness. Jung took this notion a step further and coined the term complex. A complex centres on a accredited theme which pervades a persons life once more and again in many different ways. It must be a fall out theme which profoundly influences the psychology of the individual. Unlike the more general terms used by Freud, the idea of a complex provides a more structured way of understanding an individuals unconscious expressions through the methods used in psychoanalysis, and the term was adopted by Freud into his psychology (Schultz and Schultz, 2009). Jung also introduced the concept of the embodied unconscious, as he felt that Freuds conceptualization of the unconscious was apt when applied to the individual, but incomplete as it could not account for the consistency of certain dream themes and even specific symbols between individuals (Jung, 1981). Jung believed that the consistency of dreams between individuals was best explained by introducing a new train to the unconscious a communal level where universally relevant prototypic symbols filter in clothed form into the conscious awareness of individuals through dreams. These archetypes are fundamental frequency aspects of life which apply to all people, and as such are ingrained in some way in all cultures, but are explicit differently between cultures in their individual myths, legends and deities. For Jung , archetypal images include that of the mother, to give an idea of the sort of motifs supposedly native in the corporate unconscious. Although Freud would later acknowledge the idea of a joint unconscious (Jung, 1936), he still did not attribute particular grandness to it like Jung did, seeing it as more of an appendix to the figurel unconscious. The collective unconscious was of paramount importance in Jungs theory of dreams he supposed that many dream images and themes could be interpreted as representing archetypes present in the collective unconscious (Jung, 1981). It is necessary here to delve a little further into Jungs theory of the general human psyche to fully appreciate his perspective on dreams. Jung believed the ultimate goal of life was individuation (Jung, 1923), which refers to the unification of purposelity, and an acknowledgment of all unconscious impulses. This integration of the unconscious with consciousness can only occur with the two still operating(a) in relative autonomy but with the conscious mind achieving a degree of acceptance of the unconscious two the collective and paradigml unconscious that is. Until individuation can be achieved, the individual must continue to guarantee to differentiate themselves from the collective consciousness through the establishment of an individual persona. The persona is shaped through the processes of acculturation and individual acknowledge and therefore the persona an individual choses to project may not truly reflect how they are feeling or thinking. Jung argued this persona is also shaped by the collective unconsciousness, and this struggle for individuation against the archetypes, and the strain felt by wearing the persona like a mask is expressed in dreams (Jung, 1923). The idea of desegregation opposites features heavily in Jungs theories, and he believed that dreams could be expressions of this internal struggle, which is a perspective shared by Freud. However, it is clear that th ere is disagreement on the origins of the internal struggles for Freud they arise only from the pressure of individual desires which are deemed as unacceptable by the conscious mind, whereas Jung saw in dreams the process of socialisation via exposure to the collective unconscious and the archetypes, while at the same meter the ego struggles against such influence for the possibility of individuation. It can be gleamed from this verbal description of the theories of Jung compared to those of Freud that Jungs had more of a spiritual aspect to them. The idea of a collective unconscious inhabited by concepts that are familiar to all people does have an air of transcendence compared to the private unconscious, which is concerned only with the unbearable thoughts of the one individual concerned. The objectivist worldview of Freud can be clearly contrasted here with that of Jung who did not discount spiritual perspectives, but saw in them analogies, representations and affirmations of h is possess concepts, albeit expressed with some artistic licence and cultural influence. The goal of individuation, Jung thought, was at the mystical heart of all religions, whereas the collective unconscious gave rise to all manner of representations in religious texts. This brings us to another way in which the theories differ. Freud conceptualised the unconscious as being overwhelmingly focused on shun emotions and thoughts concerning the ego. The complex for Freud was always a malevolent phenomenon. Jung did not believe this necessarily had to be the case, and stipulated that the unconscious could contain desires, thoughts and feelings of any emotional valence. Jung believed that the contents of the individualized unconscious could have been repressed from consciousness for any number of reasons, which differs drastically from the opinion of Freud who believed that this was only possible through the activation of the defence mechanisms he conceived of. Indeed, Jung saw many of the archetypes as benign abstractions (Jung, 1981) shared by all cultures which are universally effective in shaping the socialisation of all members of a society. Jungs theory then has greater scope, in encapsulating the macro-level influences which affect all people as well as individual tendencies expressed in dreams Freud focused to heavily perhaps on the individual and their straightaway relatives. Both Freud and Jung believed that unconscious underlying emotions for certain concepts drive external behaviour, the primary disagreement is over the placement of these emotional drives. Jung proposed that images filter up from the collective unconscious and are given individualised guises appropriate to each individual (but they nonetheless represent the same archetype). Feelings regarding this archetype arise from personal nonplus and inherent inclinations. These feelings are then expressed in the personal unconscious through dreams and take on personal significance in the cons cious mind. In Freuds theory, the process of unconscious expression takes place just in the personal unconscious and is concerned with emotions, thoughts and desires surrounding personal relationships and experience (Williams, 1963). Both of these psychodynamic theorists saw dreams as a key diagnostic putz in psychotherapy. However, there was some divergence in interpretative technique primarily that Jung did not believe that the meaning of one dream symbol could be transferred effectively between people. To reuse the earlier example, to dream of the Eiffel tower could be interpreted completely differently depending on who dreamed it, their personal circumstances and the dream context. The dream image of the Eiffel tower for Jung does not inherently mean anything in and of itself. Although both methods of interpretation have resulted in the lessen of neurotic symptoms for some patients (Freud, 1954 Jung, 1936) the fact that these theories are essentially speculative cannot be ove rlooked lightly. Both Freud and Jung attached paramount significance to dreams in the process of the human mind, reading great meaning into sometimes seemingly dogmatic dream images, but the fact that these theories cannot be empirically tested and rely on mainly neurotic patients for the acquisition of evidence is a overserious criticism of both theories. The purpose of dreams is another area in which these theories put forward different views. Both theorists agree that the unconscious is expressed in dreams, but Jung adds that socialisation occurs through exposure to the collective unconscious, and individuation is desire through the establishment of an appropriate place for the ego in relation to the archetypes (Jung, 1936). Therefore, dreaming is a process of growth for Jung, whereas Freud saw dreams as expressive and in need of interpretation for them to really be of use to the dreamer. A common theme in both theories though when it comes to the purpose of dreams is compens ation. In psychoanalytic theory, it is assumed that dreams can arise to compensate for a conscious attitude thus balancing the position of the ego, this perspective is shared by both Jung and Freud. In a compensatory dream, the dreamer may be expressing a contrary attitude to one consciously held, although this would occur in disguised form as the manifest content in the dream. This assumption would compute into the psychoanalytic strategy employed by both theorists, where they would most notably differ would be in their interpretation of the meaning of certain symbols whether they represent archetypes (as in Jungs theory) or are analogous to personal relationships with people or objects in conscious life (as in Freuds theory). To conclude, there initially appears to be many more similarities than differences between the theories of Freud and Jung regarding dreams. Both subscribe the existence of an unconscious which expresses itself with symbolic images through dreams for the pur pose of compensation both see the interpretation of the unconscious expression as potentially beneficial, and the pathology of neuroses is seen to have a causal influence in the unconscious desire. Despite these fundamental similarities there is also much divergence. Most of the theoretical difference is created by the proposition of the collective unconscious by Jung. This introduces a spiritual element, and an extra purpose of dreaming, which involves communing with archetypal forms to establish personal identity, and maintain a mighty socialised persona. This is mostly incompatible with Freudian theory, which takes a more prey view and focuses on patterns of unconscious expression within the personal unconscious between individuals, seeking to establish a universal method of dream interpretation, something Jungian theory would deem impossible.ReferencesFenichel, O. (2006). The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis. London Routledge.Freud, A. (2011). The ego and the mechanisms of d efence. Exeter Karnac Books.Freud, S. (1900). Distortion in dreams. The interpretation of dreams, 142-143.Freud, S. (1922). The unconscious. The ledger of Nervous and Mental Disease, 56(3), 291-294.Freud, S. (1940). An strategy of Psycho-Analysis. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 21, 27-84.Freud, S. (1954). The origins of psycho-analysis (p. 216). M. Bonaparte, & W. Flie? (Eds.). New York Basic Books.Jones, E. (1913). Freuds theory of dreams. London, England Bailliere, Tindall & beJung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types or the psychology of individuation. Oxford, England Harcourt, BraceJung, C. G. (1936). The concept of the collective unconscious. quiet works, 9(1), 42.Jung, C. G. (1981). The archetypes and the collective unconscious (Vol. 9). Princeton Princeton University Press.Orrells, D. (2013). Freuds Phallic Symbol. Classical Myth and depth psychology Ancient and Modern Stories of the Self, 39.Shultz, D. and Shultz, S. (2009). Theories of Personality (9th Ed.). Be lmont, CA Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Williams, M. (1963). The indivisibility of the personal and collective unconscious. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 8(1), 45-50.