Psyche and Society: Some Personal Reflections on the Development of the Cultural Complex Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beginning with a review of the current development of cultural complex theory, this article discusses the notions of the "collective psyche: "thin times", the cultural complex as being like a "teratoma" and the major characteristics of cultural complexes. The article is framed in terms of "personal reflections" of Thomas Singer who places the development of the ideas in the context of his personal development as a Jungian analyst. The theory and practice of "cultural complexes" is likened to a cultural circumambulation of highly conflicted political, social, economic and environmental issues in which the search for effective action is always at issue. Much of what tears us apart in the world today can be understood as the manifestation of autonomous processes in the collective and individual psyche that organize themselves as cultural or group complexes—which one can metaphorically imagine as accumulating in the collective psyche much like a newly reported area in the Pacific ocean where microscopic plastic particles from around the world seem to be coming together in a massive glob that fills an area the size of Texas. Cultural complexes are every bit as real, every bit as formative, every bit as ubiquitous, and every bit as powerful in their emotional and behavioral impact on individuals and groups as are personal complexes. Indeed, cultural complexes may present the most difficult and resistant psychological challenge we face in our individual and collective life today. Thomas Singer, unpublished remarks to the Berlin Jung Society
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".