The Visionary Mystical Art of Carl Jung: See Illustrated Pages from The Red Book

Carl Jung’s Liber Novus, bet­ter known as The Red Book, has come to light in a com­plete Eng­lish trans­la­tion, pub­lished by Nor­ton in a 2009 fac­sim­i­le edi­tion and a small­er “reader’s edi­tion” in 2012. The years since have seen sev­er­al exhi­bi­tions of the book, which “could pass for a Bible ren­dered by a medieval monk,” writes art crit­ic Peter Frank, “espe­cial­ly for the care with which Jung entered his writ­ing as ornate Goth­ic script.”

Jung “refused to think of him­self as an ‘artist’” but “it’s no acci­dent the Liber Novus has been exhib­it­ed in muse­ums, or func­tioned as the nucle­us of ‘Ency­clo­pe­dic Palace,’ the sur­vey of vision­ary art in the 2013 Venice Bien­nale.” Jung’s elab­o­rate paint­ings show him “every bit the artist the medieval monk or Per­sian courtier was; his art hap­pened to be ded­i­cat­ed not to the glo­ry of God or king, but that of the human race.”

One could more accu­rate­ly say that Jung’s book was ded­i­cat­ed to the mys­ti­cal uncon­scious, a much more neb­u­lous and ocean­ic cat­e­go­ry. The “ocean­ic feeling”—a phrase coined in 1927 by French play­wright Romain Rol­land to describe mys­ti­cal oneness—so annoyed Sig­mund Freud that he dis­missed it as infan­tile regres­sion.

Freud’s antipa­thy to mys­ti­cism, as we know, did not dis­suade Jung, his one­time stu­dent and admir­er, from div­ing in and swim­ming to the deep­est depths. The voy­age began long before he met his famous men­tor. At age 11, Jung lat­er wrote in 1959, “I found that I had been in a mist, not know­ing how to dif­fer­en­ti­ate myself from things; I was just one among many things.”

Jung con­sid­ered his elab­o­rate dream/vision journal—kept from 1913 to 1930, then added to spo­rad­i­cal­ly until 1961—“the cen­tral work in his oeu­vre,” says Jung schol­ar Sonu Sham­dasani in the Rubin Muse­um intro­duc­tion above. “It is lit­er­al­ly his most impor­tant work.”

And yet it took Dr. Sham­dasani “three years to con­vince Jung’s fam­i­ly to bring the book out of hid­ing,” notes NPR. “It took anoth­er 13 years to trans­late it.” Part of the rea­son his heirs left the book hid­den in a Swiss vault for half a cen­tu­ry may be evi­dent in the only por­tion of the Red Book to appear in Jung’s life­time, “The Sev­en Ser­mons of the Dead.”

Jung had this text pri­vate­ly print­ed in 1916 and gave copies to select friends and fam­i­ly mem­bers. He com­posed it in 1913 in a peri­od of Gnos­tic stud­ies, dur­ing which he entered into vision­ary trance states, tran­scrib­ing his visions in note­books called the “Black Books,” which would lat­er be rewrit­ten in The Red Book.

You can see a page of Jung’s metic­u­lous­ly hand-let­tered man­u­script above. The “Ser­mons,” he wrote in a lat­er inter­pre­ta­tion, came to him dur­ing an actu­al haunt­ing:

The atmos­phere was thick, believe me! Then I knew that some­thing had to hap­pen. The whole house was filled as if there were a crowd present, crammed full of spir­its. They were packed deep right up to the door, and the air was so thick it was scarce­ly pos­si­ble to breathe. As for myself, I was all a‑quiver with the ques­tion: “For God’s sake, what in the world is this?” Then they cried out in cho­rus, “We have come back from Jerusalem where we found not what we sought/’ That is the begin­ning of the Septem Ser­mones. 

The strange, short “ser­mons” are dif­fi­cult to cat­e­go­rize. They are awash in Gnos­tic the­ol­o­gy and occult terms like “plero­ma.” The great mys­ti­cal one­ness of ocean­ic feel­ing also took on a very sin­is­ter aspect in the demigod Abraxas, who “beget­teth truth and lying, good and evil, light and dark­ness, in the same word and in the same act. Where­fore is Abraxas ter­ri­ble.”

There are tedious, didac­tic pas­sages, for con­verts only, but much of Jung’s writ­ing in the “Sev­en Ser­mons,” and through­out The Red Book, is filled with strange obscure poet­ry, com­ple­ment­ed by his intense illus­tra­tions. Jung “took on the sim­i­lar­ly styl­ized and beau­ti­ful man­ners of non-west­ern word-image con­fla­tion,” writes Frank, “includ­ing Per­sian minia­ture paint­ing and east Asian cal­lig­ra­phy.”

If The Red Book is, as Sham­dasani claims, Jung’s most impor­tant work—and Jung him­self, though he kept it qui­et, seemed to think it was—then we may in time come to think of him not only as an inspir­er of eccen­tric artists, but as an eccen­tric artist him­self, on par with the great illu­mi­na­tors and vision­ary mys­tic poet/painters.

Note: An ear­li­er ver­sion of this post appeared on our site in 2020.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Carl Jung: Tarot Cards Pro­vide Door­ways to the Uncon­scious, and Maybe a Way to Pre­dict the Future

The Famous Breakup of Sig­mund Freud & Carl Jung Explained in a New Ani­mat­ed Video

Carl Jung Explains His Ground­break­ing The­o­ries About Psy­chol­o­gy in a Rare Inter­view (1957)

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC.

Why Smart People Feel Like Frauds: The Psychology of Impostor Syndrome and Its Hidden Benefits

Incom­pe­tent peo­ple tend to see them­selves as not just com­pe­tent, but high­ly com­pe­tent. So, at any rate, holds the the­o­ry of the “Dun­ning-Kruger effect,” pre­vi­ous­ly fea­tured here on Open Cul­ture. But does the con­verse also hold: do high­ly com­pe­tent peo­ple tend to see them­selves as incom­pe­tent? That would seem to be an impli­ca­tion of what’s been called “impos­tor syn­drome,” a per­sis­tent sense of inad­e­qua­cy rel­a­tive to one’s sta­tus or posi­tion, unsup­port­ed by any objec­tive evi­dence. If you your­self have been afflict­ed with that con­di­tion, it may be a tad hasty to take it as a sign of your own effec­tive­ness, but as the Har­vard Busi­ness School’s Arthur C. Brooks explains in the clip above, it may nonethe­less ben­e­fit you to lean into it.

“What all strivers I’ve ever met have in com­mon is that, the high­er they climb and the more suc­cess they have, the more inse­cure they feel in their own suc­cess because they’re not quite sure that they’ve earned it or deserve it,” Brooks says. Iron­i­cal­ly, in his expe­ri­ence, “peo­ple who deserve suc­cess through hard work and mer­it and per­son­al respon­si­bil­i­ty are not quite sure they deserve it, and the peo­ple who don’t deserve it are often the peo­ple who are actu­al­ly most sure that they do.”

In that last group are pos­ses­sors of the so-called “dark tri­ad” traits: nar­cis­sism, Machi­avel­lian­ism, and psy­chopa­thy. A “good, nor­mal, healthy per­son,” by con­trast, will nat­u­ral­ly won­der if they real­ly mer­it the pro­mo­tions, rewards, and acco­lades they receive, and if they’re tru­ly up to each task ahead.

To com­bat impos­tor syn­drome, Brooks rec­om­mends you “under­stand it, keep up to date with it, and keep try­ing to get bet­ter at the things you’re not good at yet.” Human­i­ty’s gen­er­al neg­a­tiv­i­ty bias may keep most of us sus­pect­ing that we’ve been over­es­ti­mat­ed, but that does­n’t mean we should ignore the oppor­tu­ni­ties for gen­uine self-improve­ment that such feel­ings present. “The truth is, if things are real­ly, real­ly rough for you, you’re not all weak­ness­es, and if things are going real­ly well for you, you’re not all strengths.” It just hap­pens that at some times, every­one focus­es on the for­mer, and at oth­er times, the lat­ter, and what’s impor­tant is not to let your­self be too heav­i­ly influ­enced in either case. Per­haps you can stay ground­ed by bear­ing in mind a cou­ple of trusty old adages: that nobody’s per­fect, and that you do, some­times, have to fake it ’til you make it.

Relat­ed con­tent:

24 Com­mon Cog­ni­tive Bias­es: A Visu­al List of the Psy­cho­log­i­cal Sys­tems Errors That Keep Us From Think­ing Ratio­nal­ly

Why Incom­pe­tent Peo­ple Think They’re Com­pe­tent: The Dun­ning-Kruger Effect, Explained

Why Over­con­fi­dence Is Our Most Dan­ger­ous Cog­ni­tive Bias

John Cleese on How “Stu­pid Peo­ple Have No Idea How Stu­pid They Are” (Oth­er­wise Known as the Dun­ning-Kruger Effect)

There Are Eight Forms of Intel­li­gence, Not Just One: Which Apply to You?

The Sur­pris­ing Pow­er of Bore­dom: It Lets You Con­front Big Ques­tions & Give Life Mean­ing

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. He’s the author of the newslet­ter Books on Cities as well as the books 한국 요약 금지 (No Sum­ma­riz­ing Korea) and Kore­an Newtro. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

Why Some People Think in Words, While Others Think in Pictures & Feelings

The age of social media has shown human­i­ty a fair few truths about itself, not all of them flat­ter­ing. But once in a while, one of the waves of dis­course that roll through the inter­net real­ly does help us bet­ter under­stand one anoth­er. Take the sur­prise some have expressed in recent years upon find­ing out that the expres­sion to “pic­ture” some­thing in one’s head isn’t just a fig­ure of speech. You mean that peo­ple “pic­tur­ing an apple,” say, haven’t been just think­ing about an apple, but actu­al­ly see­ing one in their heads? The inabil­i­ty to do that has a name: aphan­ta­sia, from the Greek word phan­ta­sia, “image,” and pre­fix -a, “with­out.”

That same tem­plate has late­ly been used to cre­ate anoth­er term, anen­dopha­sia, whose roots endo and pha­sia mean “inner” and “speech.” As you might expect, the word refers to the lack of an inter­nal mono­logue. That sounds bizarre to many who hear it for the first time: some because they can’t imag­ine think­ing in words, and oth­ers because they can’t imag­ine think­ing in any­thing else.

These, as explained in the Void­ed Thoughts video above, are just some of the ways the expe­ri­ences inside our heads dif­fer. Some 40 per­cent of us hear and even have con­ver­sa­tions with “inter­nal voic­es,” about 50 per­cent of us see things in our mind’s eye instead, and some 20 per­cent report think­ing exclu­sive­ly in feel­ings. Those who belong to one of those groups will have trou­ble imag­in­ing what life is like for any­one in the oth­ers.

This owes to the inher­ent inac­ces­si­bil­i­ty of one human being’s sub­jec­tive expe­ri­ence to anoth­er, a con­di­tion that has bedev­iled philoso­phers prac­ti­cal­ly since the emer­gence of their pro­fes­sion. But sci­en­tif­ic researchers have also been look­ing into it, and their stud­ies have sug­gest­ed that the capac­i­ty for inter­nal mono­logues and men­tal pic­tures makes more than a triv­ial dif­fer­ence in one’s life. Visu­al thinkers, the video notes, tend to be bet­ter at mem­o­riza­tion; ver­bal thinkers “usu­al­ly have an edge when it comes to plan­ning, prob­lem-solv­ing, and rehears­ing,” but they’re also “more prone to loop­ing thoughts.” In prac­tice, most of us use both forms of think­ing in dif­fer­ent pro­por­tions depend­ing on the sit­u­a­tion, and thus, to an extent, enjoy both sets of advan­tages — and should watch out for both sets of dis­ad­van­tages.

Relat­ed con­tent:

How to Silence the Neg­a­tive Chat­ter in Our Heads: Psy­chol­o­gy Pro­fes­sor Ethan Kross Explains

How to Improve Your Mem­o­ry: Four TED Talks Explain the Tech­niques to Remem­ber Any­thing

The Secret to High Per­for­mance and Ful­fil­ment: Psy­chol­o­gist Daniel Gole­man Explains the Pow­er of Focus

Why You Do Your Best Think­ing In The Show­er: Cre­ativ­i­ty & the “Incu­ba­tion Peri­od”

What a Lack of Social Con­tact Does to Your Brain

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. He’s the author of the newslet­ter Books on Cities as well as the books 한국 요약 금지 (No Sum­ma­riz­ing Korea) and Kore­an Newtro. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

How to Improve Your Attention Span: Daniel Pink’s Strategies for the Digital Age

In his new video above, the writer Daniel Pink pro­pos­es the fol­low­ing exer­cise: “Grab a book and time your­self. How long can you read with­out get­ting up or check­ing your phone? Real­ly try to push your­self, but don’t judge your­self if it’s only a few min­utes. Write down your time; that’s your base­line.” From there, you “train your atten­tion like a mus­cle: build it by start­ing small and grad­u­al­ly stretch­ing it.” This is just one of five strate­gies he rec­om­mends to “fix your atten­tion span,” a repair of which more and more of us feel in need the deep­er we get into the twen­ty-first cen­tu­ry. If even open­ing up a book sounds like a bit much, first take up Pink’s chal­lenge of watch­ing this four-and-a-half minute video “on full screen, 1x speed, with no dis­trac­tions.”

As with any endeav­or, it’s impor­tant to start small. Once you have your base­line, how­ev­er you’ve mea­sured it, you can set about improv­ing it. In order to place your­self well to do so, Pink rec­om­mends elim­i­nat­ing dis­trac­tions from your imme­di­ate envi­ron­ment, which has already been “rigged against you,” not least by social media com­pa­nies: hence the impor­tance of cre­at­ing a “no phone zone,” or at least per­ma­nent­ly turn­ing off noti­fi­ca­tions.

Draw­ing on the work of Cal New­port (pre­vi­ous­ly fea­tured here on Open Cul­ture), he also sug­gests cre­at­ing cues — using cer­tain phys­i­cal move­ments, cer­tain music, cer­tain scents — that sig­nal your brain to go into work mode. But even in work mode, you should make sure to take breaks, delib­er­ate­ly, every 90 min­utes, or at what­ev­er inter­val your brain starts per­form­ing like a tod­dler in a melt­down.

On the high­est lev­el of all, we must “recon­nect atten­tion to mean­ing.” In oth­er words, we have to under­stand the rea­sons we’re doing a task, if any, before we can hope to con­cen­trate on it. “I learned this myself on my last book,” Pink says. “I was strug­gling. I was dis­tract­ed. I was on my phone and watch­ing sports high­lights rather than my work, and I real­ized the prob­lem was that I did­n’t know why I was writ­ing this book. I did­n’t have a pur­pose.” Only when he final­ly artic­u­lat­ed the ben­e­fit of doing that work, and then post­ed that artic­u­la­tion above his desk, did it start to flow. When next you find your­self unable to stick to a task on the job, a per­son­al project, or a book — whether you’re read­ing or writ­ing one — ask your­self: Why am I doing this? Maybe the answer will empow­er you to attend to it. Or maybe you’ll be bet­ter off doing some­thing else entire­ly.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

How to Focus: Five Talks Reveal the Secrets of Con­cen­tra­tion

The Case for Delet­ing Your Social Media Accounts & Doing Valu­able “Deep Work” Instead, Accord­ing to Com­put­er Sci­en­tist Cal New­port

The Sur­pris­ing Pow­er of Bore­dom: It Lets You Con­front Big Ques­tions & Give Life Mean­ing

Why You Should Only Work 3–4 Hours a Day, Like Charles Dar­win, Vir­ginia Woolf & Adam Smith

How to Read Five Books Per Month & Become a Seri­ous Read­er: Tips from Deep Work Author Cal New­port

Medieval Monks Com­plained About Con­stant Dis­trac­tions: Learn How They Worked to Over­come Them

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. His projects include the Sub­stack newslet­ter Books on Cities and the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

Why Overconfidence Is Our Most Dangerous Cognitive Bias

In the two-thou­sands, the magi­cian-come­di­ans Penn and Teller host­ed a tele­vi­sion series called Bull­shit! In it, they took on a vari­ety of cul­tur­al phe­nom­e­na they regard­ed as wor­thy of the tit­u­lar epi­thet, from ESP to Area 51, exor­cism to cre­ation­ism, feng shui to haute cui­sine. Their sar­don­ic argu­ments were enriched by clips of assort­ed inter­vie­wees —speak­ing in defense of the top­ic of the day. Penn once addressed the view­ers, say­ing that we might won­der why any­one agrees to come on the show, giv­en how they must know it will make them come off. But every­one, he explained, con­fi­dent­ly believes that their own ideas are the cor­rect ones.

That episode came right to mind while watch­ing the new Ver­i­ta­si­um video above, which deals with the phe­nom­e­non of over­con­fi­dence. Like the oft-cit­ed 93 per­cent of Amer­i­cans who believe them­selves bet­ter dri­vers than the medi­an, we all fall vic­tim to that afflic­tion at one time or anoth­er, to one degree or anoth­er; the more inter­est­ing mat­ter under inves­ti­ga­tion is why that should be so.

One can always point to what T. S. Eliot called “the end­less strug­gle to think well of them­selves”: want­i­ng to believe that we know it all, we take pains to present our­selves as if we do. But as explained by the pro­fes­sors inter­viewed here, Carnegie Mel­lon’s Baruch Fis­chhoff and Berke­ley’s Don A. Moore (author of Per­fect­ly Con­fi­dent: How to Cal­i­brate Your Deci­sions Wise­ly), the research has also revealed oth­er poten­tial fac­tors in play.

One impor­tant can­di­date is, as ever, stu­pid­i­ty. Much has been made of the Dun­ning-Kruger effect, pre­vi­ous­ly fea­tured here on Open Cul­ture, which holds that the less com­pe­tent peo­ple are at a task, the more con­fi­dent they tend to be about their abil­i­ty to per­form it. That would seem to accord with much of our every­day expe­ri­ence, but we should also con­sid­er the role played by the basic cog­ni­tive lim­i­ta­tions that apply to us all. Our brains can only process so much at once, and when they come up against capac­i­ty, they default to sim­pli­fied, and often too-sim­pli­fied, ver­sions of the prob­lem before them. It all becomes more dif­fi­cult if we’re insu­lat­ed from direct, objec­tive feed­back, a con­di­tion that often results from the kind of suc­cess and esteem that can be achieved by pro­ject­ing — you guessed it — con­fi­dence.

Relat­ed con­tent:

Why Incom­pe­tent Peo­ple Think They’re Com­pe­tent: The Dun­ning-Kruger Effect, Explained

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. His projects include the Sub­stack newslet­ter Books on Cities and the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

The Surprising Power of Boredom: It Lets You Confront Big Questions & Give Life Meaning

The twen­ty-first cen­tu­ry so far may seem light on major tech­no­log­i­cal break­throughs, at least when com­pared to the twen­ti­eth. An arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence boom (per­haps a bub­ble, per­haps not) has been tak­ing place over the past few years, which at least gives us some­thing to talk about. Before that, most of us would have named the smart­phone, for bet­ter or for worse, as the defin­ing devel­op­ment of our time. Relat­ed­ly, we could also zoom out and declare that humankind has elim­i­nat­ed bore­dom. But unlike, say, get­ting rid of small­pox, that achieve­ment has yield­ed mixed bless­ings at best. The rea­son is that, as Har­vard Busi­ness School pro­fes­sor Arthur C. Brooks puts it in the Har­vard Busi­ness Review video above, you need to be bored.

“Bore­dom is a ten­den­cy for us not to be occu­pied oth­er­wise, cog­ni­tive­ly, which switch­es over our think­ing sys­tem to use a part of our brain that’s called the default mode net­work,” Brooks says. In that mode, which kicks in absent any oth­er stim­u­la­tion, we must face “big ques­tions of mean­ing” — by their very nature, uncom­fort­able ones — in our lives. “One of the rea­sons we have such an explo­sion of depres­sion and anx­i­ety in our soci­ety today is because peo­ple actu­al­ly don’t know the mean­ing of their lives, much less so than in pre­vi­ous gen­er­a­tions.” What has insu­lat­ed us so com­plete­ly from the need even to con­sid­er it? Why, “that thing in your pock­et with the screen, which you take out even when you’re stand­ing on the street cor­ner, wait­ing for the light to change.”

“We all have pock­et-sized com­put­ers now,” wrote the jour­nal­ist Kaleb Hor­ton, who died last month, in a blog post from ear­li­er this year addressed to his own father in the nine­teen-eight­ies. “You can look up ency­clo­pe­dia arti­cles and stuff but you’ll most­ly use it for check­ing the stock mar­ket and play­ing a game called Can­dy Crush. It’s real­ly just some­thing to do with your hands, like cig­a­rettes.” To those suf­fer­ing the kind of strange malaise he sens­es beset­ting so many of us here in the hyper-con­nect­ed twen­ty-twen­ties, he offers rec­om­men­da­tions includ­ing the fol­low­ing: “Log off as hard as you can. Go out­side, talk to peo­ple in real life where it’s actu­al­ly kind of rude to talk about the news, try to actu­al­ly see the friends you usu­al­ly just text mes­sage. Go for a long dri­ve and turn the phone off while you do it. Get back into your hob­bies or pick one and learn it for a while.”

In oth­er words, get offline and “try out some of those nor­mal things you hear about and if you get bored that’s won­der­ful because we’re not sup­posed to get bored any­more. It turns out bore­dom is the Cadil­lac of feel­ings.” With­out it, we’re liable to find our­selves on the way to the junk­yard: “If every time you’re slight­ly bored, you pull out your phone,” Brooks says, “it’s going to get hard­er and hard­er for you to find mean­ing, and that’s the recipe for depres­sion and anx­i­ety and a sense of hol­low­ness, which, by the way, are all through the roof.” If you delib­er­ate­ly and reg­u­lar­ly go with­out check­ing your phone, or indeed expos­ing your­self to any oth­er source of elec­tron­ic stim­u­la­tion, you’ll build “the skill of bore­dom,” which will enable you not only to con­front life’s grand ques­tions, but also to be less bored with ordi­nary life — some­thing we should all learn to savor while we still can.

Relat­ed con­tent:

The Ben­e­fits of Bore­dom: How to Stop Dis­tract­ing Your­self and Get Cre­ative Ideas Again

Lyn­da Bar­ry on How the Smart­phone Is Endan­ger­ing Three Ingre­di­ents of Cre­ativ­i­ty: Lone­li­ness, Uncer­tain­ty & Bore­dom

How to Take Advan­tage of Bore­dom, the Secret Ingre­di­ent of Cre­ativ­i­ty

David Lynch Explains How Med­i­ta­tion Boosts Our Cre­ativ­i­ty (Plus Free Resources to Help You Start Med­i­tat­ing)

Bored at Work? Here’s What Your Brain Is Try­ing to Tell You

Med­i­ta­tion for Begin­ners: Bud­dhist Monks & Teach­ers Explain the Basics

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. His projects include the Sub­stack newslet­ter Books on Cities and the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

What a Lack of Social Contact Does to Your Brain

To many of us, the con­cept of soli­tary con­fine­ment may not sound all that bad: final­ly, a reprieve from the siege of social and pro­fes­sion­al requests. Final­ly, a chance to catch up on all the read­ing we’ve been mean­ing to do. Final­ly, an envi­ron­ment con­ducive to this med­i­ta­tion thing about whose ben­e­fits we’ve heard so much. (Per­haps we made those very assur­ances to our­selves when the COVID-19 pan­dem­ic set in.) But accord­ing to the ani­mat­ed TED-Ed les­son above, writ­ten by psy­chi­a­trist and cor­rec­tion­al men­tal health expert Ter­ry Kupers, the neg­a­tives of the expe­ri­ence would well out­weigh the pos­i­tives. It all comes by way of answer­ing the ques­tion, “What hap­pens to your brain with­out any social con­tact?”

Unsur­pris­ing­ly, per­haps, iso­la­tion takes its great­est toll when imposed against the will of the iso­lat­ed, and even more so when imposed for an indef­i­nite dura­tion. “Ear­ly on, stress hor­mones may spike, and as time pass­es, that stress can become chron­ic,” says the video’s nar­ra­tor.

With­out the avail­abil­i­ty of social inter­ac­tions as “a sound­ing board where we can gauge how ratio­nal our per­cep­tions are,” one’s “sense of iden­ti­ty and real­i­ty becomes threat­ened.” The stage is there­fore set for “depres­sion, obses­sions, sui­ci­dal ideation, and, for some, delu­sions and hal­lu­ci­na­tions.” Sleep­ing dif­fi­cul­ties can man­i­fest on the more strict­ly phys­i­cal end, poten­tial­ly accom­pa­nied by “heart pal­pi­ta­tions, headaches, dizzi­ness, and hyper­sen­si­tiv­i­ty.”

While trav­el­ing in the Unit­ed States, Charles Dick­ens bore wit­ness to the pun­ish­ment by soli­tary con­fine­ment already in effect in Amer­i­can pris­ons, com­ing away with the impres­sion that it was “worse than any tor­ture of the body.” He wrote that after a vis­it to a Philadel­phia pen­i­ten­tiary, whose very name reflects the the­o­ry, held by the Quak­er groups who intro­duced the prac­tice in the late eigh­teenth cen­tu­ry, that it could “bring about reflec­tion and pen­i­tence.” After much research on the mat­ter, Kupers has come to the con­clu­sion that, in fact, it “does immense dam­age that is con­trary to reha­bil­i­ta­tion, while fail­ing to reduce prison vio­lence.” If you’re read­ing this, you may not be espe­cial­ly like­ly to be sen­tenced to invol­un­tary con­fine­ment. But the next time you start feel­ing out of sorts for rea­sons you can’t pin down, con­sid­er how long it’s been since you’ve spent real time with real peo­ple.

Relat­ed con­tent:

What Hap­pens When You Spend Weeks, Months, or Years in Soli­tary Con­fine­ment

How Lone­li­ness Is Killing Us: A Primer from Har­vard Psy­chi­a­trist & Zen Priest Robert Waldinger

Mod­ern Art Was Used As a Tor­ture Tech­nique in Prison Cells Dur­ing the Span­ish Civ­il War

What an 85-Year-Long Har­vard Study Says Is the Real Key to Hap­pi­ness

On the Pow­er of Teach­ing Phi­los­o­phy in Pris­ons

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. His projects include the Sub­stack newslet­ter Books on Cities and the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

Meryl Streep’s First Film Role Was in an Animated Film on Erik Erikson’s Stages of Life (1976)

Dif­fi­cult as it may be to remem­ber now, there was a time when Meryl Streep was not yet syn­ony­mous with sil­ver-screen star­dom — a time, in fact, when she had yet to appear on the sil­ver screen at all. Half a cen­tu­ry ago, she was just anoth­er young stage actress in New York, albeit one rapid­ly ascend­ing the rungs of the­atri­cal pres­tige, doing three Shake­speare plays and then star­ring in Weill, Haupt­mann, and Brecht’s Hap­py End on Broad­way. The Deer Hunter, Kramer vs. Kramer, Out of Africa, Post­cards from the Edge, The Bridges of Madi­son Coun­ty: all this lay in her future in 1976, the year of her fea­ture debut.

Streep made that debut in Every­body Rides the Carousel, a now-obscure ani­mat­ed film that dra­ma­tizes post-Freudi­an psy­chol­o­gist Erik Erik­son’s eight stages of psy­choso­cial devel­op­ment. First pub­lished in his book Child­hood and Soci­ety in 1950, this scheme cap­tured the imag­i­na­tion of the mid-cen­tu­ry Amer­i­can pub­lic, grow­ing ever hun­gri­er as it was for clear, leg­i­ble sys­tems of self-under­stand­ing.

Erik­son con­ceived of each age of man as a strug­gle for res­o­lu­tion between two oppos­ing forces: in infan­cy, for exam­ple, trust ver­sus mis­trust; in ado­les­cence, iden­ti­ty ver­sus role con­fu­sion; and so on.

The young Meryl Streep, or rather her voice, appears in the sixth stage, ear­ly adult­hood, whose theme is love. She acts out that age’s con­test of inti­ma­cy and iso­la­tion with Charles Levin, anoth­er up-and-com­er who would go on to achieve wide recog­ni­tion on tele­vi­sion shows like Alice, Hill Street Blues, and (just once, but mem­o­rably) Sein­feld. In char­ac­ter as a young cou­ple unsteadi­ly feel­ing their way through their rela­tion­ship, the two engage in a remark­ably nat­u­ral­is­tic con­ver­sa­tion, all ani­mat­ed in a sev­en­ties water­col­or style in the vision of direc­tor John Hub­ley. A pro­lif­ic ani­ma­tor who’d worked on Dis­ney’s Fan­ta­sia, Hub­ley was known as the cre­ator of Mr. Magoo: a man who pro­vid­ed us all with an exam­ple of how to nav­i­gate late adult­hood’s path between ego integri­ty and despair, how­ev­er myopi­cal­ly.

via Messy Nessy

Relat­ed con­tent:

Watch Meryl Streep Have Fun with Accents: Bronx, Pol­ish, Irish, Aus­tralian, Yid­dish & More

Social Psy­chol­o­gist Erich Fromm Diag­noses Why Peo­ple Wear a Mask of Hap­pi­ness in Mod­ern Soci­ety (1977)

Mas­ter of Light: A Close Look at the Paint­ings of Johannes Ver­meer Nar­rat­ed by Meryl Streep

Mar­cel Marceau Mimes the Pro­gres­sion of Human Life, From Birth to Death, in 4 Min­utes

Meryl Streep Gives Grad­u­a­tion Speech at Barnard

Hear Meryl Streep Read Sylvia Plath’s “Morn­ing Song,” a Poem Writ­ten After the Birth of Her Daugh­ter

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. His projects include the Sub­stack newslet­ter Books on Cities and the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

« Go Back — More in this category... »
Quantcast