Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Articoli

No. 52 (2020): Polis e psiche

Symbolic capacity and liquid modernity

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/jun52-2020oa9313
Submitted
marzo 3, 2020
Published
2020-11-26

Abstract

The hypothesis is that the symbolic ability (the human being relationship with symbols) is deeply influenced by the social component. It is believed that this aspect has not been considered enough in the psychological field, in particular Jungian.
The process of individuation is described by Jung in almost exclusively “vertical” terms. The separation made by Jung between signs and true symbols is discussed: this separation is still valid, but must be seen in a more elastic way to avoid a fracture in what is meant as a scale of the density of meaning. Nowadays the symbolic capacity is actually compromised on both sides. The consequences of postmodernity in general (in the Zygmunt Bauman description) and the internet phenomenon in particular are analyzed in relation to the neurobiological as well as the psychological effects. The most important consequences of the constant use of internet include the difficulty in thorough reading and in the reflection and the damage of long-term memory.

References

  1. Bauman Z. (1989). Modernity and the Holocaust. Cambridge: Polity Press (trad. it. Modernità e Olocausto. Bologna: il Mulino, 1992).
  2. Bauman Z. (1993). Postmodern Ethics. Oxford UK and Cambridge USA: Blackwell Publishers (trad. it. Le sfide dell’etica. Milano: Feltrinelli, 2010).
  3. Bauman Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press; Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. (trad. it. Modernità liquida. Bari: Laterza, 2002).
  4. Borgna E. (2019). Saggezza. Bologna: il Mulino.
  5. Borsani R. (2015). Sul dorso di un’oca. Bergamo: Moretti & Vitali.
  6. Cabibbe F. (2014). “Fine dei viaggi?”. L’Ombra, 4: 61-75.
  7. Carr N. (2010). The Shallows. What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brain? New York: Norton (trad. it. Internet ci rende stupidi? Milano: Raffaello Cortina, 2011).
  8. Carr N. (2014). The Glass Cage. Automation and Us? New York: Norton (trad. it. La gabbia di vetro. Milano: Raffaello Cortina, 2015).
  9. Dorfles G. (1962). Simbolo, comunicazione, consumo. Torino: Einaudi.
  10. Durand Gilbert. (1996). Champes de l’imaginaire. Grenoble: UGA Editions (trad. it. “L’universo del simbolo”. In: Campi dell’Immaginario. Milano: Mimesis, 2018).
  11. Franzini E. (2018). Moderno e postmoderno. Un bilancio. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
  12. Jervis G. (2011). Il mito dell’interiorità. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
  13. Jung C.G. (1928). Über die Energetik der Seele (trad. it. Energetica Psichica. In: Opere, vol. 8. Torino: Boringhieri 1976).
  14. Kugler P. (1982). The Alchemy of Discourse. Associated University Presses (trad. it. L’Alchimia delle parole. Bergamo: Moretti & Vitali, 2002).
  15. Levi P. (1960). Storie naturali. Torino: Einaudi.
  16. Mc Luhan M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Berkeley: Gingko press (trad. it. Gli strumenti del comunicare. Milano: Il Saggiatore, 2015).
  17. Moreno M. (1973). La dimensione simbolica. Padova: Marsilio.
  18. Trevi M. (1986). Metafore del simbolo. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
  19. Viviani C. (2018). La poesia è finita. Diamoci pace. A meno che… Genova: Il melangolo.
  20. Zoja L. (2013). “La psicologia del profondo nel suo secondo secolo”. In: In difesa della psicoanalisi. Torino: Einaudi.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...