The Four Noble Truths of Relationships
Marriage as a Psychological Relationship
The Development of Personality (1954/1991), Volume 17 of The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, includes an essay entitled “Marriage as a Psychological Relationship” that Carl Jung wrote in 1925 and was translated into English in 1926. Jung made a clear distinction about what he meant by “psychological.”
Whenever we speak of a “psychological relationship” we presuppose on that is conscious, for there is no such thing as a psychological relationship between two people who are in a state of unconsciousness. From the psychological point of view they would be wholly without relationship. From any other point of view, the physiological for example, they could be regarded as related, but one could not call their relationship psychological. It must be admitted that though such total unconsciousness as I have assumed does not occur, there is nevertheless a not inconsiderable degree of partial unconsciousness, and the psychological relationship is limited in the degree to which that unconsciousness exists. (p. 189, [CW 17, ¶ 325])
In this passage Jung equated “psychological” with conscious, and in particular, conscious about one’s self and their partner. He suggested that to the extent the couple is unconscious of their own and their partner’s psychology the “psychological relationship” is limited and in a state of primitive identity with others which he calls “a complete absence of relationship” (p. 190, [CW 17, ¶ 326]).
Next Jung directly called out the fool who things he is done, but has only just begun, suggesting that these relationships are formed through forces that are mostly unconscious which he likened to a fatal compulsion and a lack of free choice.
Subjectively, of course, he thinks himself very conscious and knowing, for we constantly overestimate the existing content of consciousness, and it is a great surprising discovery when we find that what we had supposed to be the final peak is nothing but the first step in a very long climb. The greater the area of unconsciousness, the less is marriage a matter of free choice, as is shown subjectively in the fatal compulsion one feels so acutely when one is in love. The compulsion can exist even when one is not in love, though in less agreeable form. (p. 190, [CW 17, ¶ 327])
Jung stressed, “it is the strength of the bond to the parents that unconsciously influences the choice of husband or wife, either positively or negatively” (p. 191, [CW 17, ¶ 328]). He went on to state that, “the children are driven unconsciously in a direction that is intended to compensate for everything that was left unfulfilled in the lives of their parents (p. 191, [CW 17, ¶ 328]). With this in mind Jung proposed, “one must know first of all the cause of the unconscious tie to the parents, and under what conditions it forcibly modifies, or even prevents, the conscious choice (p. 191, [CW 17, ¶ 328]). Of course, this is no small task yet Jung says no more in this essay about bringing these unconscious motives to consciousness. Perhaps he felt Freud’s psychoanalysis (They were still friends in 1910.) sufficiently addressed how to reveal these parental unconscious ties.
Jung further defined the unconscious “conventional marriage” as a “purely instinctive choice” and “an instrument for maintaining the species” (p. 192, [CW 17, ¶ 328]). Here he separates the biological purpose of marriage from the psychological purpose of marriage, indicating the former is collective and impersonal.
In second half of life the marriage begins to breakdown moving from passion and duty to an intolerable burden, “a vampire that battens on the life of its creator” (p. 193, [CW 17, ¶ 331a]). This is an important metaphor worth amplifying. A vampire is the living dead, casting no shadow because it cannot live in the light. A vampire feeds on the blood of the living which Jung cast as its creator implying the conflict between consciousness and the unconsciousness. “This disunity with oneself begets discontent, and since one is not conscious of the real state of things one generally projects the reason for it upon one’s partner. A critical atmosphere thus develops, the necessary prelude to conscious realization” (p. 194, [CW 17, ¶ 331b]).
This might be a good place to introject that Jung was entering midlife when he wrote this essay and a year or so earlier had a mysterious relationship with a younger woman/patient that was the talk of the little town of Zurich (Bair, 2003).
The essay moves into a discourse about a typical marriage between the simple-minded, the contained, the anima and the mind of complexity, the container, the animus alluding to women and men, respectively. I would be remiss in my feminism to not mention the arrogant chauvinism in Jung’s subsequent discourse, but at this point I believe most of us can set aside his outdated cultural views without discounting the importance of his contribution.
His point is that the contained usually is better adapted to the marriage, wholly dependent yet swallowed up by the more complex partner. While the container has one foot in and one foot out of the marriage due to the fact that a large part of her personality is left unseen by the simple-minded. Jung posited the simple-minded partner is “grounded on a positive relationship to the parents” and the more complex partner is “hindered by a deep-seated unconscious tie the parents” (p. 194, [CW 17, ¶ 331b]) and “burdened with hereditary traits that are sometimes very difficult to reconcile” (p. 194, [CW 17, ¶ 331c]). About the container, the complex partner Jung wrote,
These people, having a certain tendency to dissociation, generally have the capacity to split off irreconcilable traits of character for considerable periods, thus passing themselves off as much simpler that they are; or it may happen that their many-sidedness, their very versatility, lends them a peculiar charm. Their partners can easily lose themselves in such a labyrinthine nature, finding in it such an a abundance of possible experiences that their personal interests are completely absorbed, sometimes in a not very agreeable way, since their sole occupation then consists in tracking the other through all the twists and turns of his character. (pp. 194-5, [CW 17, ¶ 331c]).
In this passage Jung recognizes the impact the container’s complexity has on the contained leading to a crack in the idealized security of the contained. The contained is then forced to see the personality she has relied on is not dependable causing her to turn inward and find security there. The container longs for unity and undividedness causing him to turn inward upon realizing he cannot find it outside of himself.
Jung infers that one cause of infidelity in marriage is this longing for unity and undividedness suggesting, “a dissociation is not healed by being split off, but by more complete disintegration” (p. 197, [CW 17, ¶ 334]). As one’s outer world becomes more and more disintegrated, “all the powers that strive for unity, all healthy desire for selfhood, will resist the disintegration, and in this way he will become conscious of the possibility of an inner integration” (p. 197, [CW 17, ¶ 334]). I cannot help viewing these passages as a pale explanation of his own infidelity. As such, it is difficult to separate Jung’s projections from his psychological wisdom in several passages within this essay.
The balance of the essay moves away from the source of marital strife as unconscious ties to the parents into a discussion of the archetypes of anima and animus with no bridge connecting these two sources.
Next the essay moves into a short explanation of the psychological stages of development. He posited that, “psychic life is a development that can easily be arrested on the lowest levels” (p. 201, [CW 17, ¶ 343]); and that few people “fall into deeper disharmony with themselves” (p. 201, [CW 17, ¶ 343]), unless that is, social security causes psychological insecurity leading first to neuroses and possibly to separation, divorce or another marital disorder.
The essay ends with the marriage in shambles, man reaching beyond his limits “becoming a fool and a menace” (p. 201, [CW 17, ¶ 344]) and nature [psyche] is praised as being aristocratic and esoteric. This is not Jung’s best writing since at this point in his life he had not achieved enough distance from his own marital strife.
About the Author, Dr Bren:
Dr. Bren Hudson is a holistic psychotherapist, life coach, and couples counselor specializing in Jungian depth psychology and spiritual transformation. With a PhD in Depth Psychology from Pacifica Graduate Institute, she integrates Jungian analysis, Psychosynthesis, and somatic practices to help clients uncover unconscious patterns, heal trauma, and foster authentic self-expression. Her extensive training includes certifications in Internal Family Systems (IFS), Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT), HeartMath, Reiki, and the Enneagram, as well as studies in archetypal astrology and the Gene Keys. Formerly a corporate consultant, Dr. Bren now offers online sessions to individuals and couples worldwide, guiding them through personalized journeys of healing and self-discovery.
Connect with Dr. Bren:
Frequently Asked Questions
1.What are the Four Noble Truths of Relationships according to Carl Jung?
The Four Noble Truths of Relationships serve within Jungian psychology to explain how unconscious dynamics influence relationships. They are:
Unconscious Influence: Most relationships begin unconsciously, driven by unseen psychological forces, often related to parental ties.
Lack of Free Choice: The more unconscious we are in choosing a partner, the less freedom we have in the relationship, leading to a sense of fatal compulsion.
Psychological Growth: Marriages may start with passion, but they evolve, and partners must become conscious of their own psychological processes to avoid conflict.
Inner Integration: True relationship growth requires each partner to turn inward, realizing that unity and fulfillment come from within, not just from their partner.
2. How do parental influences affect relationships?
According to Jung, unconscious bonds with parents significantly shape our choice of partner. We often choose partners to fulfill unmet needs from childhood, either mimicking or compensating for our parents’ traits. This can result in unconscious compulsions in relationships.
3. What is the significance of Jung’s metaphor of the marriage as a "vampire"?
Jung uses the metaphor of a "vampire" for one elicits vampire parasitic-based relationships that drain off the life force of one or both partners when unconscious problems have become dominant. The metaphor signifies more of a passive struggle between the conscious and the unconscious parts of a relationship.
4. How can individuals grow within a marriage according to Jung?
Jung emphasizes that psychological growth is essential for both partners. Growth happens when both become aware of their unconscious motives and work towards inner unity. This process of individuation allows the relationship to evolve rather than stagnate.
Need Help? Contact Dr Bren
Animate your Soul for Life!
Send me a message right now to get started on your soulful journey. Together, we will create a coaching plan that is unique and perfect for you.
DR BREN | Buddhist and Jungian Psychology
207 Wendover Ln, Durham, NC 27713, United States
Mobile +1 919-407-0999 Email Bren@drbren.com
