Fish

As a water-dwelling creature, the fish symbolizes the content of the unconscious, or in other words, “awareness of unconscious content.” (See also Water.) It suggests possibilities, but as an animal, it is distant from humanity and lacks “clarity” (von Franz 1996, p. 155). It can represent unspecified libido, so to speak, without a particular direction. The fish is “dumb,” yet still a representative of (spiritual) wisdom. A paradox, in other words, but this is to be expected – according to Jung, the content of the unconscious is invariably paradoxical (Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, par. 419). Thus, the fish shares much symbolic content with the snake (cf.).

Unconscious Content

In fairy tales, a recurring image is that of a fish suddenly jumping out of the water or at least poking its head above the surface, something that can be seen as a symbol for how unconscious content suddenly emerges within us. Since the fish (in dreams, fairy tales, and so forth) is just below the surface, at the surface, or even partially above the surface, it symbolizes unconsciously living content on the threshold of consciousness. (Cf. Fisherman.)

Gluttony

The fish is, in many stories and representations, a devouring animal attributed with all sorts of gluttonous desires. According to Jung, fishes are described as “lustful, greedy, slippery ... an emblem of worldly vanity and earthly pleasure” (Aion, par. 174). They are also connected in this regard to mother and love goddesses such as Ishtar, Astarte, and Aphrodite.

Wisdom and Spirituality  

The fish is a symbol of wisdom (since it lives in the depths of the unconscious, if nothing else), and also has a religious symbolic value. It can have a special quality where spirituality and instincts are merged, but in a completely undifferentiated way. It is an “inspirer” that brings wisdom, and many times a “helpful animal.”

Christ as Fish

The not entirely obvious but well-established connection between Christ and the fish motif is explored by Jung in Aion (see especially par. 145f). The association is early, and the expression piscina, “fish pond,” for the baptismal font is also early. The believers were seen as fish (compare Matthew 4:19), and Christ wanted to make the disciples “fishers of men,” and so forth.  

In these mystical contexts, the fish and the serpent are synonymous; both are salvific figures from the unconscious. They are both “popular symbols for denoting psychic movements or experiences that unexpectedly or liberatingly emerge from the unconscious” (Aion, par. 291).

Children and Future

The fish lives in the same environment as the unborn child and is thus something that has not yet been born, something that is to come; it is a symbol of rebirth. – One who has to undergo a profound transformation must, like the fish, be swallowed.

Alchemy

The alchemists described the fish as round (cf. Circle) and with the ability to create wonders. (Some may have meant jellyfish, but others meant fish in the strict sense.) It represents the mystical substance and was associated with spirit, which, like the fish, was thought to be bound to water (until the water is heated and the spirit is released as steam).

For the alchemists, the fish was connected to fire, just as their water “was fire.” According to several sources, the fish contained the “dragon stone” (cf. Dragon). The fish is both prima materia and lapis, a symbol of the primal state and the goal; in this way, it can be a symbol of the Self. Jung writes: “Its symbolization as fish characterizes the Self in this state as unconscious content” (Aion, par. 219).

Fish Eyes  

The completely round fish eye that never closes has a spiritual quality associated with God's all-seeing eye on one hand, and the Self on the other. Fish eyes can represent the sparks of consciousness or “soul sparks” (scintillae) from the unknown depths.

Popular posts from this blog

Forget About the Archetype - It's the Complex

A good post on Reddit expresses criticism towards people seeking answers to their personal problems in Jung’s archetype theory, arguing that they misunderstand Jung’s fundamental theoretical framework, particularly the process of individuation. The post became popular, receiving many upvotes and quickly garnering several fairly lengthy, often well thought-out responses. But what struck me was that the writer didn’t mention complexes a single time in the nearly 600-word post, and no one else did either in their comments. This prompted me to write a short post highlighting the point that when people share their thoughts on Jung in relation to their own or others’ psychology, it is actually, in most cases, about complexes—not archetypes. A couple of days later, the thread had 54 comments and 246 upvotes, which are rather high numbers in this forum for a serious post that sticks to the topic of Jungian psychology. However, my post hadn't received any comments or upvotes. Still no-one e...
Read more

Shadow Work – A Critical Commentary

When browsing public channels on various platforms that deal with Jungian psychology, one is struck by how frequently “shadow work” appears.  It seems to be mostly young men, who don’t appear to have studied Jung to any significant extent, who are fascinated by and encourage this "work." As someone who has studied Jung and Jungian literature for a long time, I don’t recognize this focus on so-called shadow work in the sources at all. It actually seems to be a modern internet phenomenon rather than something genuinely Jungian. Yes, it is of course true that the “shadow” is a central concept in Jungian psychology, and it is true that Jung stated that it is "a therapeutic necessity for the ego to confront its shadow" (CW 14, par. 514) – but this shadow work they speak of, where does it come from? Because it certainly doesn’t come from Jung or any influential Jungians. What is the shadow according to Jung? It is simply hidden or unconscious aspects of ourselves that we...
Read more

3. The Muster of Rohan; 4. The Siege of Gondor

Since neither Frodo, Gandalf or Aragorn participates in the events of this chapter, there is very little symbolic significance. We may note that Théoden’s army meets Éowyn at Dunharrow, an ancient fortress to which the people have fled under her leadership. During supper, Merry asks about Aragorn and the Paths of the Dead, but no one—neither Théoden, Éomer or Éowyn—understands why he chose to take this hopeless road. No one knows of the Stone of Erech or the “peril in the south.” “Woe that so valiant a man should trifle with death in this dire hour!” Éomer exclaims. The reason for Aragorn’s reticence is probably that his initiation is an intensely private matter, a secret pure and simple. Théoden intends to leave both Éowyn and Merry behind here—neither of them is suited to battle, he believes. But when the host later rides toward Gondor, Éowyn and Merry ride with it in secret. Both refuse to be left in a place where their respective callings would remain unfulfilled. 4. The Siege of G...
Read more