See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/295401759

Jung: Five Psychic Drives through a Corporate Lens

Working Paper · February 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3711.2085

CITATIONS READS
0 102

1 author:

Ginger Grant
Humber College
21 PUBLICATIONS 63 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ginger Grant on 21 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Jung: Five Psychic Drives through a Corporate Lens

Ginger Grant, PhD.

To engage in research that is both scholarly and innovative can be a

daunting task. To break ground from traditional academic work involves

considerable risk. And yet, risk must be taken in order to produce innovative

work. How to find a balance between the two? The balance can be maintained

and held using archetypal psychology, which contains both traditional and

innovative aspects within its approach to an individual, a group or a

corporation. It is the archetypal realm that is sufficiently multifaceted to handle

the complexity of organizational theory and to bring that complexity to

conscious awareness. The Co-founder of Archetypal Psychology, James Hillman

claims:

We are traditional because we return all things to their deepest

principles, the archai, the limiting roots holding down and in. They
determine by recurring with fatalistic regularity, little caring for place or
time. We are revolutionary because these same archai are the radicals of
existence. They will out, always. They force the claims of the
dispossessed soul upon the ruling consciousness of each place and time
(Re-Visioning 112).

I will explore the possibility of research conducted in a corporate

environment in order to “see-through” senior management’s perception of the

organization and what is actually in place as a corporate mythology. The

foundation of such mythology is in the archai, those aspects of self and

collective that provides the cultural component to our existence. As DNA is the

foundation of our physical reality, archetypes are the foundation of our psychic

reality. Hillman expresses this succinctly in Kinds of Power:

 Grant 2

Here I am positing patterns of power in the imagination, patterns prior to

ideas and revealed in the ideas. These are archai, the Greek term for root
principles, the basic metaphors on which all things rest and which give
consistently typical forms and styles of expression to the way we think,
feel and talk. (219)

I am defining a corporate mythology as “who you are” as opposed to a

mission statement, which defines “what you do”. A corporate mythology is a

pattern of ideas or archai, which are the birthing force of an organization. This

formulation will be a traditional theoretical paper exploring corporate

mythology. Accordingly, here I will try and delineate the steps I would take in

order to engage in a heuristic participative study that would help to define a

current corporate mythology.

The lens by which I view the world was formed and continues to be

inspired by the prolific work of Carl Gustav Jung, in particular, his work on

psychic drive theory. Jung maintained that Psyche contains both physical

reality and psychic reality, inner and outer, the external being manifested

through ectopsychic determinants, which he termed psychic drives. This theory

is not to be confused with Freudian drive theory—Jung’s model is an internal

representation of Psyche that can and does manifest in outward reality.

The manifestations of these determinants are influenced by three

physical modalities; “sex, age and hereditary disposition of the individual”

(Jung, CW8: 248), which I will here treat as self-evident and three

psychological modalities. These three psychological modalities provide me with

a fascinating lens through which any belief system or mythology may be

viewed.
 Grant 3

The first is the consciousness of the individual, whether action and

thought are formulated from a conscious or unconscious viewpoint. The second

is the direction of the individual’s or own lens, whether extroverted or

introverted. The third modality is again through the lens of the individual,

whether through matter or spirit, through the body or through the mind. The

first lens is the one to which I address this paper as it specifically applies to

corporate organization. As Hillman is fond of saying “Ideas we have, and do not

know we have, have us” (Power, 16).

To aid in formulating any possible research direction, Moustakas

maintains, “within each researcher exists a topic, theme, problem, or question

that represents a critical interest and area of search” (27). This point defines

the “initial engagement” portion of the research itself. My question is “what

mythology does this corporation live by?” and how it can be captured in words

that will reduce its power, yes, but also aid in increasing the awareness of that

power to all concerned. If the initial question is viewed within the lens of Jung’s

theory, it would be in the framework of “what does the corporation hunger for

that is not explicit?” Hillman states that:

The Economy determines who is included and who marginalized,

distributing the rewards and punishments of wealth and poverty,
advantage and disadvantage. Because this internalization of its ideas is
so unquestioningly and universally accepted, it is the Economy where
the contemporary unconscious resides and where psychological analysis
is most needed. (Power 4)

If the contemporary unconscious resides in the active mythology of a

corporation, then my role as a consultant would be expanded to conduct a

 Grant 4

form of therapy for corporations as well as individuals that expands conscious

awareness. To look at the internal structure of any organization requires a

depth psychological approach, as it is the underpinnings, the “sub-stance” of

the organization that drives the behavior of the whole.

Jung states “from the psychological standpoint five main groups of

instinctive factors can be distinguished: hunger, sexuality, activity, reflection

and creativity” (CW8: 246). From these psychic instincts comes a

metamythology—the personal construct that formulates all beliefs and values.

This is not a system that can be evaluated primarily by logos or logic, the state

of the psyche is expressed and measured by our feeling function, and our

apperception of our surroundings and circumstances, our deep intuitive sense

of who and what we are.

This is where a psychic hunger originates. What has fueled the creation

of this corporation? Who gave birth to it? If the originator is still present and

active in the organization, it provides a different set of questions than if

someone else has taken over the company. The mythology also will shapeshift if

a merger or acquisition has taken place, causing two mythologies to collide and

impact each other. Do they blend? Is one assimilated? These are some of the

initial questions that must be asked in order to ascertain the living structure of

the organization. To find the mythos will not be easy as a psychic drive is an

archetypal force in its own right. What do you hunger for that you cannot

name? A physical hunger can be satisfied by the consumption of food. A

psychic hunger requires a different form of nourishment.

 Grant 5

Hunger, as a characteristic expression of the instinct of self-preservation,

is without a doubt one of the primary and most powerful factors
influencing behavior; in fact, the lives of primitives are more strongly
affected by it than by sexuality. At this level, hunger is the alpha and
omega – existence itself. (CW8: 237)

The key factor is to note is self-preservation and its locus of control. If internal,

hunger will be driven by a separate metaphor than if external. These

metaphors are the manifestation of the psychoid materials that construct the

living mythology which will differ from organization to organization. As Hillman

reminds us: “The curious difficulty of explaining just what archetypes are

suggest something specific to them. That is, they tend to be metaphors rather

than things” (Re-Visioning xiii). To look at the metaphors used by individuals in

a corporation gives us the “under-standing” of the corporate mythology. What

stands under the actual behavior?

“Once the question is discovered and its terms defined and clarified, the

researcher lives the question in waking, sleeping, and even dream states”

(Moustakas 28). Having found this particular question, it is as if I found my

own personal hammer and the entire world is now a nail. How does the psychic

material impact our daily life in an organization?

To continue working within the lens of Jung’s drive theory, sexuality is

the next drive that manifests itself in psychic structure. How does that affect a

corporate entity? Through its sensate environment.

An environment formulates behavior. People produce their best results

when they are relaxed and comfortable in their work environment. It matters

not if extrovert or introvert, the individual must feel “at home”.

 Grant 6

The sexual instinct enters into combination with many different feelings,
emotions, affects, with spiritual and material interests, to such a degree
that, as is well known, the attempt has been made to trace the whole of
culture to these combinations. (CW8: 238)

If conscious recognition is given to the environment, it is perceived through the

senses. That sensuality, the apperception of place, of location; is unconsciously

impacted by the environment in which we find ourselves. Jung also

emphasized the archetype of “place” as one that has transformational power

(CW9i: 80). To recognize what motivates an individual will also inform the type

of surroundings that will enhance performance. “Home” means different things

to different people. To feel “at home” requires a complex interpretation and

such environmental concerns should not be dismissed lightly.

The making of soul-stuff calls for dreaming, fantasying, imagining. To

live psychologically means to imagine things; to be in touch with soul
means to live in sensuous connection with fantasy. To be in soul is to
experience the fantasy in all realities and the basic reality of fantasy (Re-
Visioning 23).

To ask questions in this realm provides many different responses that again,

need to be verified for authenticity with the employees themselves. This

sensuous connection with a fantasy provides a field of potential whereby

change can occur. The responses gathered will again shapeshift the questions

as each drive is viewed and evaluated.

Job function can be expressed in the third drive, that of activity. The

description of the work performed is also impacted by its contextuality, the

workplace as a society.
 Grant 7

I should like, then, to differentiate as a third group of instincts the drive to

activity. This urge starts functioning when the other urges are satisfied;
indeed, it is perhaps only called into being after this has occurred. Under
this heading would come the urge to travel, love of change, restlessness, and
the play-instinct. (CW8: 240)

After the first two drives have been appeased, an individual will begin to focus

on the type of work performed and the relationship with others in the

workplace. An important aspect of the societal construct of the workplace is

that of the play instinct, again, one that may be overlooked. Nothing produces

a more relaxed atmosphere than a touch of humor. A sense of play is

fundamental to a healthy, productive work environment. Work and play are a

psychic necessity. The expression “work hard and play hard” is no accident.

Such a belief needs to be incorporated into an organization’s corporate

mythology. At this point, the researcher needs to evaluate the data that has

been collected through these participatory interviews. Moustakas calls this

stage, Incubation. “Incubation is the process in which the researcher retreats

from the intense, concentrated focus on the question” (28). Such incubation

leads directly into the fourth drive.

The fourth drive for consideration, is that of reflection. Archetypal

psychology is a cultural movement that has its foundations in the imagination,

the creative source in each individual. Anything that has been constructed by

an individual, existed first in their imagination. With the acts of reflecting,

thinking, dreaming, fantasizing--the real business of a business gets done.

Jung states that “another instinct, different from the drive to activity and so far

as we know specifically human, which might be called the reflective instinct” is

 Grant 8

another aspect of our psyche that must be fulfilled. (CW8: 241). Reflection, if

we so choose, leads us to our creative source. The ability to imagine and re-

member an experience is foundational to this phenomenological approach to

organizational theory.

Reflexio is a turning inwards, with the result that, instead of an

instinctive action, there ensues a succession of derivative contents or
states which may be termed reflection or deliberation. Thus in place of
the compulsive act there appears a certain degree of freedom, and in
place of predictability a relative impredictability as to the effect of the
impulse. (CW8: 241)

This level of impredictability, is a painful one. The researcher must stay

open to the possibilities that arise from the reflection on the mythology of the

corporation. To remain open to the shifting of ideas is difficult but necessary,

for it leads to what Moustakas calls, illumination. “The process of illumination

is one that occurs naturally when the researcher is open and receptive to tacit

knowledge and intuition” (29).

Our ability to imagine provides the foundation for reflection, for

remembering is an imaginal activity. Through such an activity, we are

sometimes motivated to create something that gives form or expression to such

remembering. Indeed, Jung felt that the creative impulse was strong enough to

cause neurosis if it was not honored and maintains:

The richness of the human psyche and its essential character are
probably determined by this reflective instinct. Reflection re-enacts the
process of excitation and carries the stimulus over into a series of images
which, if the impetus is strong enough, are reproduced in some form of
expression. This may take place directly, for instance in speech, or may
appear in the form of abstract thought, dramatic representation, or
ethical conduct; or again, in a scientific achievement or a work of art.
(CW8: 242)
 Grant 9

It is the drive to reflection, to re-member or re-create experience, that enables

the creative act to take place. The use of the imaginal is self-evident whether it

may be used in the formulation of a marketing strategy, the development of

training programs, or the construction of a corporate mythology. Our ability to

imagine is the bedrock of innovation. Without the active imagination of some

daring individual, there is no corporation to begin with. “All our inventions

begin as ideas; all our material power derives from ideational power” (Hillman

21). In today’s workplace, there is no time for any executive to self-reflect – to

be able to focus on the imaginal of what yet might become. As a result, unused

potential for creativity and innovation is untapped.

In research methodology, this reflection also includes an additional phase; to

witness the multifaceted layers of meaning that arise. “The purpose of the

explication phase is to fully examine what has awakened in consciousness, in

order to understand its various layers of meaning” (Moustakas 31). Our

potential for creativity is an archetypal force in its own right. We need to bring

back the language of the imaginal into the hallowed halls of business.

Archetypal thinking doesn’t necessitate one-to-one equations, because

this thinking is rooted in a polytheistic imagination in which the powers
of ideas are interlinked and mutually influenced. There is no one sure
truth, one sure identity, one sure explanation. The value of archetypal
thinking is not so much to give sure identification to problems. Rather, it
aims to open the mind to psychological reflection on the mind’s stance
and projects. (Hillman, Power 232)
 Grant 10

In order to open the mind for psychological reflection, I cannot “think” my way

through a creative process; my reveries will lead me to where the drive to

creativity will express itself through me. To operate at this level of creativity is a

form of soul making, specifically the soul of the corporation itself. Hillman

reminds us:

If soul-making is not treatment, not therapy, not even a process of self-

realization but is essentially an imaginative activity or an activity of the
imaginal realm as it plays through all of life everywhere and which does
not need analyst or an analysis, then the professional is confronted with
reflecting upon himself and his work. (Myth of Analysis, 7)

In reflecting upon the work fantasized and then performed, the challenge is to

translate such creative formulation into the language of the corporation

without a reduction in the emotional meaning. Passion is a force that needs to

be handled creatively. In order for creative synthesis to take place, Moustakas

suggests that it “can only be achieved through tacit and intuitive powers” (31).

It is imperative to recognize that this formulation does not originate in logic or

logos but instead, eros. To a depth psychological approach, this necessitates a

uroboric deepening of the evaluation process itself. Circling the layers of

meaning provides access to the unspoken constructs that form the

organization. “Deepening insists: no avoidance and no escape. Stay planted. No

leave of absence. Clean up the mess.” (Hillman, Kinds of Power 51).

To satisfy the drive of creativity, we come to a crossroads and the

culmination of the initial study of the organization itself. Make no mistake, in

order to evaluate accurately the corporate mythology that is functioning in an

organization takes time and patience. It would be easy to stay in the superficial
 Grant 11

realm of marketing gimmicks, but that does not touch the force that drives the

marketing itself. An archetypal or depth approach offers a container that will

hold the complexity, the multiplicity of belief systems in an organizational

structure, until a synthesized mythology can be recognized and given language.

From a cultural perspective, then, the essence of the leader’s job is not
how to create an organizational culture but how to manage the diversity
of subcultural forces that are already operating, that is, how to integrate
and evolve a highly differentiated organization, and how to enhance
elements of the culture that are congruent with new environmental
realities while changing dysfunctional elements of the culture. (Schein
144)

Heuristic research gives us a methodology that enables our experience to

inform our conceptual framework in an overt legitimate form. This view of

organizational development is a relatively new field and requires both a

conceptual frame and a methodology that can handle complexity. Archetypal

theory is a construct that can contain the tension of polarities that come from

examining a corporate entity and also can provide metaphorical language that

can reach beyond our ability to articulate; in short, an archetypal approach

provides access to the visionary realm of possibility. Using a heuristic

methodology enables the researcher and the participants to incorporate

learning into the methodology itself, providing a flexible container by which to

encapsulate and articulate a corporate mythology without delimiting its

effectiveness.

Using myths as grids lets you analyze phenomena by holding them up

against the light of archetypal figures whose attributes and behaviors are
even more complicated than what you are examining. Instead of reducing
meaning to a definition, myths amplify and complicate. They are the path
of richness. (Power, 102)
 Grant 12

Our economic world has changed substantially to a global marketplace.

In order to survive such a paradigm shift, we need a new way of looking at

organizational development. In my view, that perspective must come from the

imaginal realm of archetypal psychology. Only a mythic imagination can hold

the multiplicity of a global perspective.

 Grant 13

Works Cited

Hillman, James. Kinds of Power. A Guide to its Intelligent Uses. New York:
Doubleday. 1995.

Hillman, James. The Myth of Analysis. New York: HarperCollins, 1972.

Hillman, James. Re-Visioning Psychology. New York: Harper, 1975.

Jung, C.G. Translated by R. F.C. Hull. The Structure and Dynamics of the
Psyche. CW8. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1960. 2nd Edition 1969.

Jung, C.G. Translated by R. F.C. Hull. The Archetypes and the Collective
Unconscious. CW9i. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1959. 2nd Edition, 10th
Printing 1990.

Moustakas, Clark. Heuristic Research. Design, Methodology, and Applications.

Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1990.

Schein, Edgar H. The Corporate Culture Survival Guide. San Francisco, Jossy-
Bass Inc. 1999.

View publication stats