Marie-Louise von Franz on What Kills Religions

[@justineengels]

Marie-Louise von Franz speaks from the context of the 1970s, a time when the global perception of Islam was vastly different from today. She refers to historical events, such as the medieval expansion of Islam, to illustrate archetypal collective dynamics. Her aim is not to criticize contemporary Islam but to reflect on the psychological forces that drive religions in general. Von Franz explains that every religion, including Christianity, Islam, and others, has a shadow. In Jungian terms, the shadow represents repressed, unintegrated, or potentially destructive aspects. This is not a judgment on the followers or the faith itself but a reflection on the dangers of uncontrolled collective emotions that can emerge within any religious or ideological system. The example she provides about medieval Islam highlights a form of intense collective and emotional expression of a religious archetype. She warns against the dangers of religions or movements that become swept up in uncontrolled mass dynamics. This caution applies to other religions as well, as evidenced by her references to Christianity and sectarian phenomena (such as the case of Jim Jones). It is important to acknowledge that today’s Islam is diverse, complex, and evolved compared to its historical forms. Von Franz refers to a historical collective phenomenon and does not aim to reduce contemporary Islam or Muslims to a simplistic characterization. Von Franz stresses that when religious movements become collective and emotionally charged, they risk devolving into destructive behaviors. She does not single out Islam but discusses the inherent risks in all religions or ideologies when they lose their introspective balance. Marie-Louise von Franz’s objective is to demonstrate how rituals and collective religious experiences must remain connected to their deep symbolic and archetypal meaning. When they become mechanical or are overtaken by uncontrolled emotions, they lose their essence. Examples for Illustration: 1.In her analysis, she also cites examples from Christianity, such as the decline of rituals in Western churches, or political movements like Nazism, showing that her observations are broad and not religion-specific. 2.She expresses admiration for Native American rituals, which maintain a conscious control over emotion, a model she seems to value. It is important to remember that Marie-Louise von Franz’s work focuses on the symbolic and psychological exploration of human phenomena, not on the condemnation of a specific religion. Her reflections should be seen as an invitation to understand the dynamics of the collective unconscious, not as a critique of any group or faith. After the question I would ask in a very simplistic way : In what way is she wrong ?

[@xandr13]

Oh no, what she's saying here makes perfect sense today - as well as any other day.

[@garyhynes]

I agree Islam has become more moderate in general, however I do not see many Muslims speaking out about the atrocities committed by some of its members in the name of their faith, so in a sense they are all still entrapped by it while not all going around chopping heads off either.

[@ekesandras1481]

I would also consider her own biography: Christianity in her time was very much linked to being part of a local Parish or village community. It was more a culture and cultural identity than a religion. For the more mobile upper classes like her parents, this rural cultural identity always remained strange, since they lost the contact this way of life. They saw Christianity more philosophical and sometimes, like in Austria-Hungary (where her father came from) or Bavaria (where she was born), Catholicism was strongly linked with national identity and loyalty to the ruling royal or emperial house. Exactly that was falling apart after WWI, while the local rural form of Catholicism continued to thrive another 50 years until about the 1980ies. Than she moved out of the Catholic, rural, national identity sphere to the Protestant part of Switzerland, where things were totally different since at least 500 years. She also didn't fit in there, it was not her cultural or national identity or that of her parents, since non of them were Swiss Protestants, so she started to question the whole thing alltogether, which other people, who didn't move didn't - because for them the cultural identity thing was still working. It is interesting to observe that most prominent psychotherapists where either Jews, who were estranged from their own Jewish cultural background (Freud), or Protestants who were estranged from their own Protestant cultural background (C.G. Jung). Prominent psychoanalysts of Catholic background are rare and such of orthodox background almost non existant.

[@abej9790]

Has Islam changed since the Middle Ages? Was there a reform? Are people in Islamic countries free to live in non-Islamic ways without penalties? This whitewashing is unnecessary. I wish modern scholars were as frank about Islam. Unfortunately, our generation compromises honesty and gives in to fear while thinking we are progressive. We can't be progressive about anything without being objective first. Today in the West we cannot even criticize Islam. We have come a long way since freeing ourselves from Christian oppression, but for what - to submit to Islamic oppression?

[@emil_rainbow]

"diverse, complex, and evolved", can you evidence this please Justine?

[@lornemcneil]

This woman has a great mind I feel

[@matthewkopp2391]

It is interesting that she refers to happenings, I participated in many such events and was in a two year improvisation group that was partly influenced by Grotowski‘s theater exercises. Half the time happenings and this type of improvisation would fall flat, but the other half it was very magical. It was very dependent on people‘s ability to be present both externally and internally.

[@lislelisle5453]

I cant have an opinion on anything, but what i will say is there's a powet in unity against an evil. Thats what we are missing, while we stay too separate its very easy to take control of everything.

[@krejziks3398]

Religion supresses how much spirituality liberates the soul.

[@eileenhammer468]

you mean organized institutions, not 'religion'

[@emil_rainbow]

@@eileenhammer468 all religions absolve humans of the responsibility to their divine nature. Take a look around.

[@krejziks3398]

@@eileenhammer468 it's the same sh.t, different name, anything involving rules on the soul.

[@adventurealchemy805]

It becomes only ritual without meaning

[@The_Jungian_Aion]

When it's an automation. It doesn't have to be like that, the question is what's in the heart of the individual.

[@adventurealchemy805]

@ And what if there is an opposition between hearth and mind?..😉

[@The_Jungian_Aion]

@@adventurealchemy805 Then, as Marie says in the video, you can't get into it.

[@adventurealchemy805]

@@The_Jungian_Aion Than we need to find the way to untie these two opposition.What is the main key to do that?..Sincere prayers and shadow work or group prayers?

[@emil_rainbow]

@@The_Jungian_Aion what’s at the heart of the community? Are you leveraging Jung and MLvF for some purpose, Aion? Talk about shadow, eh?

[@jeraldbaxter3532]

Thank you!

[@adamswierczynski]

The dishonesty that kills religion is when the texts and the rituals don't agree, and the elders tell their congregations that they don't know how to read the texts because they'll draw the wrong conclusions without guidance. It is convenient for extremists like Jim Jones to be used as a rubric for what a christian cult looks like, but middling cult typology gets a pass.

[@adventurealchemy805]

I don't believe in groups praying ...i am sorry i don't want to offend anyone but that's my opinion ...i believe our connection with God must be intimate

[@Dischordian]

It has to be both. One for the person, and one for the community. Capitalism has wages a war on the community for decades now, so the relevence of group ritual has died away in Christianity because it's a false community, one that spends no time together.

[@idratherstayanonimous7020]

Fair. But you can't deny the magnifying power of a congregation. There's a reason why they exist. And yeah, they have pros and cons, but you can't just "not believe" on their effectuality, or may be you can, to each their own.

[@NoLefTurnUnStoned.]

Both is good

[@adventurealchemy805]

@@idratherstayanonimous7020 i personally have an issue with so called priesthood not collective prayers

[@Sekaisansen]

Maybe there must be an intimate part in terms of praying. But what about your actions and behaviour in the society - don't you think we have a responsibility as a firm believer toward our neighbours?

[@IKE-j4h]

Spitz, Pass auf!

[@moveordievision]

+

[@13vo7]

1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and Angels, and have not love, I am as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

[@Holmes.2.0]

And still Shia has not lost its genuine rituals and direction which proves its truthfulness

[@Sekaisansen]

This doesnt prove anything. If people believe that their belief or religion is the right then it becomes right for them. Imagine you are born somewhere else. You would unlikely become the person you are now. Different parents, society, school, memories and so on. There is no right or wrong. But believing only one way of believe is the correct is just nonsense

[@Dischordian]

03:40 I'm surprised to hear a Jungian sprouting this nonsense about Islam.

[@The_Jungian_Aion]

She explains that religions possess a significant shadow and uses Islam as an example. However, her point applies universally-all religions, all groups, and all individuals have shadows. It’s not Islam specifically that she is addressing.

[@nadia-i1l5h]

She could and should have kept it general , especially since she is a very intelligent woman that understands how these things work

[@justineengels]

@@nadia-i1l5h Marie-Louise von Franz speaks from the context of the 1970s, a time when the global perception of Islam was vastly different from today. She refers to historical events, such as the medieval expansion of Islam, to illustrate archetypal collective dynamics. Her aim is not to criticize contemporary Islam but to reflect on the psychological forces that drive religions in general. Von Franz explains that every religion, including Christianity, Islam, and others, has a shadow. In Jungian terms, the shadow represents repressed, unintegrated, or potentially destructive aspects. This is not a judgment on the followers or the faith itself but a reflection on the dangers of uncontrolled collective emotions that can emerge within any religious or ideological system. The example she provides about medieval Islam highlights a form of intense collective and emotional expression of a religious archetype. She warns against the dangers of religions or movements that become swept up in uncontrolled mass dynamics. This caution applies to other religions as well, as evidenced by her references to Christianity and sectarian phenomena (such as the case of Jim Jones). It is important to acknowledge that today’s Islam is diverse, complex, and evolved compared to its historical forms. Von Franz refers to a historical collective phenomenon and does not aim to reduce contemporary Islam or Muslims to a simplistic characterization. Von Franz stresses that when religious movements become collective and emotionally charged, they risk devolving into destructive behaviors. She does not single out Islam but discusses the inherent risks in all religions or ideologies when they lose their introspective balance. Marie-Louise von Franz’s objective is to demonstrate how rituals and collective religious experiences must remain connected to their deep symbolic and archetypal meaning. When they become mechanical or are overtaken by uncontrolled emotions, they lose their essence. Examples for Illustration: 1.In her analysis, she also cites examples from Christianity, such as the decline of rituals in Western churches, or political movements like Nazism, showing that her observations are broad and not religion-specific. 2.She expresses admiration for Native American rituals, which maintain a conscious control over emotion, a model she seems to value. It is important to remember that Marie-Louise von Franz’s work focuses on the symbolic and psychological exploration of human phenomena, not on the condemnation of a specific religion. Her reflections should be seen as an invitation to understand the dynamics of the collective unconscious, not as a critique of any group or faith. After the question I would ask in a very simplistic way : In what way is she wrong ?

[@The_Jungian_Aion]

​@@nadia-i1l5h She provides several concrete examples to illustrate how archetypal forces manifest in human reality, which is needed in order to make these complex concepts more tangible and relatable.

[@xandr13]

Truth hurts, doesn't it?