The interindividual nature of the self: complementarity of symbolic interactionism to C. Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious
The problem of building a picture of the world is closely related to the formation of a person's own image of themselves. Questions related to the definition of a person's place in the world and the understanding of one's own personality have been at the center of philosophical understanding since ancient times. Psychoanalysis and symbolic interactionism have also suggested possible answers to these questions. Below is a comparative analysis of the theoretical calculations of some representatives of these two trends, which in one way or another revealed the social conditionality of individuality. The psychoanalytic tradition is represented by the archetypal approach and the concept of the collective unconscious by C.G. Jung. In presenting the paradigm of symbolic interactionism, attention is drawn to the theories of the "generalized other" by G.H. Mead and the "looking-glass self1' by C.H. Cooley. The complementarity of symbolic interactionism and the theory of the collective unconscious is shown. Both analyzed approaches reveal fundamental ideas about the full realization of an individual's personal potentials only through inclusion in social ties and establishing communication with their own kind. Such communication is carried out by collectively developed symbolic means. This is explicitly stated in the very name of symbolic interactionism. For the functioning of the collective unconscious, the symbolic content of archetypes also plays a key role.