
J
ohn Steinbeck was familiar with Jungian psychology, so seeing it reflected in his work isn’t surprising. This interpretation is especially relevant, considering Steinbeck’s stated desire “to show not necessarily why people act as they do, but to show the psychological steps which precede and clear the way for an act.” [1]
Steinbeck described his “whole work drive” as being aimed at “making people understand each other.”[2] And, the understanding engendered by his novella Of Mice and Men runs several layers deep, which makes it a prime example of how novels are like a layer cake.
By that, I mean it contains several levels of meaning and perspectives of interpretation. Of Mice and Men addresses the human condition on the social/historical level, the mythological level, as well as through a psychological filter.
The first installment of this essay, It’s a Regular Greek Tragedy, examines Steinbeck’s book from a social/historical perspective. As a result of this reading, we gain a better understanding of the tragic human cost associated with economies that create, and benefit from, a class of disenfranchised workers.
Part two of this essay, Am I My Brother’s Keeper?, considers Of Mice and Men from a mythological viewpoint. It explores Steinbeck’s work through the filter of the Cain-and-Abel story. This reading engenders understanding of the fundamental human need to be connected.
The following segment, the third and final installment of this essay, is psychological in nature. It delves into Steinbeck’s novella by way of ideas and concepts established by Carl Jung. Specifically, Of Mice and Men reflects a process known as individuation, the cornerstone of Jung’s psychology.[3]
…

John Steinbeck and Carl Jung
As noted above, Steinbeck was familiar with Jungian psychology. And, though he came to Jung’s works independently, Steinbeck spent a brief but important time with biologist Ed Ricketts and Jungian philosopher Joseph Campbell. They would meet frequently to discuss ideas and books, from poems by Jeffers, to the latest Huxley novel, to the essays of Jung. And, it was through Campbell that Steinbeck became familiar with the archetypes made famous by Carl Jung.[4]
Carl Jung is not only the founder of analytic psychology, he also developed the concept of the collective unconscious… not to mention those archetypes we hear so much about.[5] Jung described human beings as fundamentally a “psychic process.”[6] And the psyche, as Jung defines it, is the totality of mental processes between two fundamental spheres with opposing properties – consciousness and the unconscious.[7]
…

What is Jung’s Concept of Individuation?
“The unconscious,” Jung maintains, “is older than consciousness. It is the ‘primal datum’ out of which consciousness ever afresh arises.”[8] Jung further states that everything in the unconscious aspires to outward manifestation. That includes the personality, which he contends “desires to evolve out of its unconscious conditions and to experience itself as a whole.”[9]
This evolution is the psychic process that Jung maintains is at the core of human development. It’s referred to as individuation, and as previously noted, it’s the cornerstone of Jung’s psychology.[10] “The aim of individuation,” Jung specifically states, “is nothing less than to divest the self of the false wrappings of the persona on the one hand, and the suggestive power of primordial images on the other.”[11]
Ultimately, individuation is a dialectic process, a confrontation of opposites. And, this dialectic brings about interaction between the conscious and unconscious aspects of the psyche. These heretofore disjointed facets, then, stand together in living relation to one another.[12] Because, as Jung also notes, “one does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.”[13]
The course individuation follows, its guideposts and milestones, are marked by archetypal symbols. And, the shape and manifestations of these archetypes vary according to the individual in question.[14] That’s the psychological journey delineated in Of Mice and Men.
The term “archetype” is derived via Latin from Greek arkhetupon and means “something molded first as a model.”[15] But what is the archetype according to Jung? Archetypes are specific elements that exist at the deepest levels of the unconscious. They’re a matrix of inherited ideas and mental images which correspond to innate tendencies and modes of thought present in the unconscious of the individual.[16]
…

Steinbeck’s Hero: George
The first archetype we need to consider is the Hero. The Hero archetype symbolizes the unconscious self, and manifests as “the sum total of all archetypes.”[17] In myths, the hero is the one who triumphs over the dragon rather than being devoured by it. Accordingly, one can’t be a hero if they’ve never met the dragon. Neither can the person who once caught a glimpse of the dragon but pretends to have seen nothing. It’s only the individual who engages the dragon and was not overcome by the experience who acquires the dragon’s hoard, the “treasure hard to attain.”[18]
In this case, the hero’s challenge is to defeat the “monster of darkness.” The treasure attained by vanquishing this dragon is the long-hoped-for and anticipated triumph of consciousness over the unconscious.[19] And, Steinbeck’s protagonist, George, embodies the Hero archetype in this Jungian reading of Of Mice and Men.
George, therefore, is the unconscious self that encompasses the “sum total of all archetypes.” Other significant characters within Steinbeck’s novella (not to mention George’s psyche) personify specific archetypes that mark milestones in his psychological development. And, the story’s narrative delineates George’s journey through the individuation process.
…

Lennie: George’s Jungian Shadow
Integration of the personal unconscious is marked by the Shadow archetype. The Shadow constitutes hidden or unconscious aspects of our psyche (both positive and negative), those the ego has either never recognized, or has repressed. And according to Jung, “it is everyone’s allotted fate to become conscious of and learn to deal with this shadow.”[20]
Integrating our Shadow into consciousness involves recognizing the unconscious and often dark aspects of our personality as real and present. Needless to say, this act is essential for any kind of self-knowledge and psychological development to occur. And, this is of course, what individuation is all about. For, as Jung tells us, “When an inferiority is conscious one always has a chance to correct it… But when it is repressed and isolated from consciousness, it can never be corrected.”[21]
It’s pretty obvious which character signifies George’s Shadow – it’s Lenny. Of Mice and Men’s opening scene defines him as such. Steinbeck makes it clear that the two men are dressed exactly alike. They walk in shadow-like fashion, single-file down a path leading into the sycamore grove where the story begins. And, they continue to stay one behind the other even after the path opens into a clearing.[22]
Lenny also mimics George’s actions. After they’ve both had a drink from a narrow pool of water at the edge of the Salinas River:

[George] replaced his hat, pushed himself back from the river, drew up his knees and embraced them. Lennie who had been watching, imitated George exactly. He pushed himself back, drew up his knees, embraced them, looked over to George to see whether he had it just right. He pulled his hat down a little more over his eyes, the way George’s hat was.[23]
Between the identical clothing, single-file alignment, and mimicked actions, the shadow motif in Steinbeck’s introduction to his main characters is unmistakable. Lenny is clearly George’s Shadow.[24]
The Shadow archetype is frequently described as our “evil nature.” But, Jung himself states that the Shadow isn’t “decidedly evil,” or “wholly bad.” Rather, the Shadow is a projection of what is primitive within us, what’s “un-adapted and awkward,” and therefore offends against “propriety.”[25] Examination of these characteristics also reveals an emotional nature that manifests as an obsessive, possessive quality.[26]
Lenny fits this description to a T. As Slim points out, Lenny “ain’t mean.”[27] But, he “ain’t bright” either, and he definitely doesn’t fit in with the other ranch hands.[28] And, the Shadow’s obsessive nature is evident in Lennie’s penchant for petting soft things. It is possessiveness that not only leads to the demise of so many mice (not to mention one of Slim’s puppies), but is at the heart of George and Lennie’s troubles. Like the incident in Weeds, where:

He jus’ wanted to touch that red dress, like he wants to pet them pups all the time.[29]
And it isn’t malevolence, but the “uncontrolled or scarcely controlled emotions” Jung associates with the Shadow, that ultimately leads to the death of Curley’s wife.[30] Lennie isn’t bad. He’s just a simpleminded lout who doesn’t know his own strength.
That said, the episode where George sics Lennie on Curley does indeed establish Lennie as the embodiment of George’s “dark” impulses. This notion is bolstered by a couple of George’s remarks, comments that foreshadow the incident in question – especially when taken together. The first assertion is made to Slim, and the other to Lennie himself:

“Sure,” said George. “I seen plenty tough little guys. But this Curley better not make no mistakes about Lennie. Lennie ain’t handy, but this Curley punk is gonna get hurt if he messes around with Lennie.”[31]

Ya know, Lennie, I’m scared I’m gonna tangle with [Curley] myself. I hate his guts.[32]
According to Jung, acknowledging our Shadow is typically met with considerable resistance.[33] But, you don’t have to be a psychologist to understand that failure to acknowledge the dark aspects of our personality thwarts all psychic development. As mentioned above, dealing with our Shadow is an essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge to occur.
…
The Anima Archetype: Embodied by Curley’s Wife.
The Anima archetype (Animus in female subjects) within the individuation process is embodied by Curley’s wife. The goal, here, is to transform the Anima (in George’s case) from a troublesome adversary into a function of the relationship between an integrated consciousness and unconscious.[34]
But what is the Anima archetype? According to Jung, the Anima consists of the feminine aspects of the male psyche (as noted above, the masculine aspects of a female psyche is known as the Animus). Therefore, unlike the Shadow which is invariably the same gender as the subject, the Anima/Animus is always a gender other than that of the subject. Bearing this in mind, it’s no surprise that the Anima/Animus is typically not recognized by the unindividuated subject as part their own psyche.
Jung describes a male subject’s Anima as “the serpent in the paradise of the harmless man with good resolutions and still better intentions.”[35] She’s the seductress, tempting us to leave our unconscious undisturbed, and isolated from the conscious elements of our psyche. She embodies the “negative, unconscious, and unrealized aspects of the psyche to which a man responds with fear.”[36] As such, she is often seen as the face of absolute evil.[37]
All of this explains George’s extreme reaction to Curley’s wife, and his severe response to Lennie’s innocent remark about her being “purty:”

I don’t care what she says and what she does. I seen ‘em poison before, but I never seen no piece of jail bait worse than her. You leave her be… you keep away from her, ‘cause she’s a rat-trap if I ever seen one.[38]
She’s clearly the character who represents his Anima. And, the reluctance of unindividuated persons to recognize this archetype as part of their psyche, explains why Curley’s wife doesn’t have a name. Steinbeck’s answer when asked why he didn’t name her, “she’s not a person,” is consistent with this idea. Rather, as Steinbeck stresses, “she’s a symbol.” In keeping with the Anima’s power to thwart the unconscious’ incorporation into the conscious realm, Steinbeck further states that the only function Curley’s wife has is to be “a foil… a danger to Lennie.”[39]
Curley’s nameless wife very much functions as the temptress. She’s a compilation of stereotypic characteristics traditionally used to mark the seductress. Steinbeck describes her as having “full, rouged lips,” “heavily made-up” eyes, and classically suggestive red fingernails. She sports red mules embellished with ostrich feathers at the instep, slippers that suggest their seductive removal rather than practical purpose for a life on the ranch. And though she enters the bunkhouse ostensibly looking for Curley, she moves her body in a way that suggests she’s looking for something besides her husband.
When the Anima (or Animus) is recognized and revealed it no longer functions from the unconscious, and we’re able to incorporate it into our conscious realm. As rendering the Shadow conscious makes knowledge of our dark aspects possible, Jung maintains that making the Anima/Animus conscious enables us to gain knowledge of the contrasexual (aspects of the so-called “opposite” sex) within our psyche. This turn of events clearly enriches the contents of our consciousness to a large degree – and in doing so, broadens our personality.[40]
…

Slim: Jung’s Wise Old Man
The Wise Old Man is an archetype of spirit, which Jung describes as a mana-personality. Mana is a Melanesian word that refers to the strong spiritual quality within gods and sacred objects. Jung applies this term to the burgeoning effect assimilating unconscious elements has on the individual psyche, especially contents associated with the Anima/Animus.[41]
The Wise Old Man is a symbol of power and wisdom. He’s the enlightener, a psychopomp. He’s a master and teacher. And often, he takes the shape of a priest, monarch, or some other person possessing authority.[42]
As the name indicates, the Wise Old Man has great foresight. He provides advice and measured guidance to help the Hero in their quest. But, he does so in a way that lets the Hero choose their own path toward destiny.[43]
Engaging this archetype facilitates the capacity for meaningful reflection and introspection, to be aware and accepting of our feelings, thoughts, and actions without any judgement.[44] And, making the contents which constitute this archetype conscious signifies the first perception of our own unique personality.[45]
Steinbeck’s muleskinner, Slim, constitutes Jung’s Wise Old Man archetype. Consistent with this archetype’s tendency to be an authority figure, Slim is described as “prince of the ranch.” Steinbeck notes that, all talk stops when Slim speaks. He further states that Slim’s authority in the bunkhouse is “so great that his word is taken on any subject, be it politics or love.”[46]
In keeping with the wisdom this archetype symbolizes, Slim’s ear is described as “hear[ing] more than was said to him.” His unhurried speech has “overtones not of thought, but of understanding beyond thought.” And Steinbeck’s description of Slim’s hands associates the muleskinner with the spiritual aspects of the Wise Old Man archetype. For, they are “as delicate in their action as those of a temple dancer.”[47]
It’s surely no coincidence that Steinbeck describes Slim as having a certain “gravity in his manner,” as moving “with a majesty achieved only by royalty and master craftsmen.” And, he’s characterized as being “capable of driving ten, sixteen, even twenty mules with a single line to the leaders.”[48] Slim is just the guy to keep Steinbeck’s Hero moving in the right direction, toward wholeness.
It’s Slim who stresses to George that Curley will take his revenge on Lennie in the most painful way possible. Symbolically significant, he reminds George how much trouble Lennie/his Shadow causes, “like that time in Weeds.” Slim also points out that keeping Lennie/his Shadow locked up (in his unconscious) “ain’t no good.”[49]
…

Individuation Is an Ongoing Process
The deaths of Lennie and Curley’s wife signify that the contents of George’s Shadow, and those of his Anima, have been integrated into his consciousness. Slim, however, doesn’t meet his demise. Rather, Of Mice and Men ends with Slim leading George “up toward the highway.”[50]
This turn of events is consistent with Jung’s view that no one is ever completely individuated. Individuation’s goal of wholeness and a sound working relationship with the Self is a lifelong journey. Hence, the highway symbolism.
Yes, the goal of individuation as described by Jung is indeed: “to bring a consciousness that has hurried too far ahead into contact again with the unconscious background with which it should be connected.” But that’s only the first round. For, as he further notes, as a rule “these psychic evolutions” don’t keep pace with “the tempo of intellectual developments.” [51]
Steinbeck’s ending shows George continuing on this lifelong journey. Though it may appear that his dreams have been shattered, George is in a much better place than he was at the beginning of the novella. For his notion of owning a farm with Lennie was nothing more than what Jung described above as “imagining figures of light.” But now, George has actually succeeded in “making the darkness conscious.”
…
In Conclusion
As noted throughout the varied segments of this essay, the understanding engendered by Of Mice and Men runs several layers deep. This trip through Jung’s concept of individuation gives us insight into fundamental psychological development. This interpretation of Steinbeck’s work is certainly in keeping with his desire to understand people, to discover “what makes them up and what keeps them going.”[52]
…

This Jungian reading stands on its own.
But it doesn’t stand alone.
Jung maintains that the advanced stages of a person’s individuation must go beyond their personal psychology to encompass wider aspects of humankind. Therefore, individuation of the individual is indissolubly linked with the whole of humanity. And, remember, individuation is an evolutionary process. As such, it has the capacity to recapitulate through the entire human race.[53]
However, as Jung also notes:

The political and social “isms” of our day preach every conceivable ideal, but, under this mask, they pursue the goal of lowering the level of our culture by restricting or altogether inhibiting the possibilities of individual development. They do this partly by creating a chaos controlled by terrorism, a primitive state of affairs that affords only the barest necessities of life and surpasses in horror the worst times of the so-called “Dark” Ages. It remains to be seen whether this experience of degradation and slavery will once more raise a cry for greater spiritual freedom.[54]
Jung goes on to say that:

This problem cannot be solved collectively, because the masses are not changed unless the individual changes.
Which brings us full-circle. It’s frequently said on this website that literature is like layer cake. And, yes, Of Mice and Men is a prime example of this notion, one that reflects what Steinbeck refers to as the “wall of background” behind this work.
As oft-noted, Steinbeck wished to show “the psychological steps which precede and clear the way” for the action(s) a person may take. In the social/historical reading of Steinbook’s book, It’s a Regular Greek Tragedy, we gain a better understanding of the tragic human cost associated with economies that create and benefit from, a class of disenfranchised workers. Like the Tragedies of ancient Greece, we see that Of Mice and Men functions as a call to action, to rethink and improve the world. Jung’s quote about political and social “isms,” however, reveals how these economies create the psychological steps for inaction.
Jung’s observation clearly exposes the psychological exploitation of these itinerant workers at the hands of California’s farm industry. It also clarifies why, contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, itinerants’ life on the road was not simply a matter of personal choice.[55] This insight, in turn, explains the resultant isolation and rootlessness addressed in the second segment of this essay, a mythological reading of Steinbeck’s work (through the filter of the Cain and Abel story). Its title, Am I My Brother’s Keeper, is of course, the very question Cain puts to God.
The multi-faceted “layers” in Steinbeck’s work do more than simply pertain to each other. These readings augment, and enrich each other – which makes the understanding of our fellow human beings and the world around us deeper still. And finally, Of Mice and Men is indeed strong medicine, one that could be described as “a bitter pill.” But, as the Ancient Greeks and writers of the Old Testament knew, such medicine is necessary to continued social and emotional health.
Endnotes:
[1] Benson, Jackson J. The True Adventures of John Steinbeck, Writer: A Biography. (New York: Viking Press, 1984), 202; Wagner-Martin, Linda. John Steinbeck: A Literary Life. (London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd., 2017), 9.
[2] Essay title is taken from Octavia E. Butler’s Parable of the Talents. (New York: Seven Stories Press, 1998), 213; Gannett, Lewis. “John Steinbeck: Novelist at Work.” The Atlantic Monthly. (December 1945), 59.
[3] Schmidt, Martin. Individuation. The Society of Analytical Psychology: Jungian analysis and Psychotherapy. https://www.thesap.org.uk
[4] Timmerman, John H. “The Pearl.” In The Short Novels of John Steinbeck: Critical Essays with a Checklist to Steinbeck Criticism. Edited by Jackson J. Benson. (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990), 144; Benson, Jackson J. The True Adventures of John Steinbeck, Writer: A Biography. (New York: Viking Press, 1984), 227; Kordich, Catherine J. Bloom’s How to Write about John Steinbeck. (New York: Bloom’s Literary Criticism, 2008), 54.
[5] Darowski, Emily S. and Joseph J. Darowski. “Carl Jung’s Historic Place in Psychology and Continuing Influence in Narrative studies and American Popular Culture.” Swiss American Historical Society Review. Vol. 52, No. 2 (2016), 1.
[6] Jung, C. G. Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Recorded and Edited by Aniela Jaffe’. Translated by Richard and Clara Winston. (New York: Vintage, 1989), 3-4.
[7] Jung, C.G. Seminar on Children’s Dreams, 1938-39. In Jacobi, Jacobi, Jolande. The Psychology of C. G. Jung (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd, 1951), 24; Jeffrey, Scott. “The Process of Individuation.” CEOsage.
[8] Jung, C.G. Seminar on Children’s Dreams, 1938-39. In Jacobi, Jacobi, Jolande. The Psychology of C. G. Jung (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd, 1951), 24.
[9] Jung, C. G. Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Translated by Richard and Clara Winston. Edited by Aniela Jaffé. (New York: Vintage Books, 1989), 1.
[10] Jung, C.G. Psychological Types or The Psychology of Individuation. Collected Works, Vol. 6. (Great Britain: University of Edinburgh, 1953), 561.
[11] Jung, C. G. Collected Works, Vol. 7: Two Essays in Analytical Psychology. Translated by Gerhard Adler, R. F. C. Hull. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), 174.
[12]Jacobi, Jolande. The Psychology of C. G. Jung (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd, 1951), 123; Jacobi, Jolande. Complex/Archetype/Symbol in the Psychology of C. G. Jung. Translated by Ralph Manheim. (Princeton, N J: Princeton University Press, 1959), 115.
[13] “Hero.” Sharp, Daryl. Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms & Concepts. (Toronto: Inner City Books, 1991).https://www.psychceu.com/jung/sharplexicon.html; Jung, C. G. The Collected Works, Vol. 13: Alchemical Studies. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read, et al. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967), 264-265.
[14] Jacobi, Jolande. The Psychology of C. G. Jung (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd, 1951), 126.
[15] “Archetype.” Lexico. Oxford Dictionary. https://www.lexico.com/definition/archetype
[16] “Concepts of Archetypes at Carl Jung.” Carl Jung Resources. https://www.carl-jung.net/archetypes.html ; “Archetype.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/archetype
[17] Jung, C. G. Collected Works, Vol. 5: Symbols of Transformation. Translated by R.F.C. Hull. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), paragraph 516.
[18] Jung, C. G. Jung on Mythology. Edited by Segal, Robert A. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2020), 171.
[19] Jung, C. G. Collected Works, Vol. 9 Part 1: Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Edited and translated by Gerhard Adler & R. F. C. Hull. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 167.
[20] Jung, C.G. Collected Works, Vol 9 part 2. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read et al. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), 22; Sharp, Daryl. Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms & Concepts. (Toronto: Inner City Books,1991). https://www.psychceu.com/jung/sharplexicon.html; Jung, Carl. “The Fight with the Shadow.” In Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Vol. 10: Civilization in Transition. Translated by Gerhard Adler & R.F.C. Hull. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964), 223.
[21] Jung, C.G. Collected Works, Vol 9 part 2. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read et al. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), 8; Jung, C. G. Collected Works Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion – West and East. Translated by R.F.C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read et al. (New York: Pantheon Books, Inc., 1958), 76.
[22] Hadella, Charlotte Cook. Of Mice and Men: A Kinship of Powerlessness. (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995), 53; Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” In The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Publishing, 1981), 228.
[23] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” In The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Publishing, 1981), 229.
[24] Hadella, Charlotte Cook. Of Mice and Men: A Kinship of Powerlessness. (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995), 53.
[25] Jung, C. G. Collected Works Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion – West and East. Translated by R.F.C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read et al. (New York: Pantheon Books, Inc., 1958), 76.
[26] Jung, C.G. Collected Works, Vol 9 part 2. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read et al. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), 8-9.
[27] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” In The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Publishing, 1981), 263.
[28] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” In The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Publishing, 1981), 261.
[29] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” In The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Publishing, 1981), 264.
[30] Jung, C.G. Collected Works, Vol 9 part 2. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read et al. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), 8-9.
[31] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” In The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Publishing, 1981), 251.
[32] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” In The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Publishing, 1981), 260. Mice Men banned Jungian]
[33] Jung, C.G. Collected Works, Vol 9 part 2. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read et al. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), 8.
[34] Jacobi, Jolande. The Psychology of C. G. Jung (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd, 1951), 131; “Anima.” Sharp, Daryl. Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms & Concepts. (Toronto: Inner City Books, 1991).https://www.psychceu.com/jung/sharplexicon.html
[35] C. G. Jung. Collected Works, Vol. 9 part 1: Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. Edited and translated by Gerhard Adler & R. F. C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 28.
[36] C. G. Jung. Collected Works, Vol. 9 part 1: Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. Edited and translated by Gerhard Adler & R. F. C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 27-28; Hadella, Charlotte Cook. Of Mice and Men: A Kinship of Powerlessness. (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995), 55.
[37] Jung, C.G. Collected Works, Vol 9 part 2. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read et al. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), 10.
[38] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” In The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Publishing, 1981), 255.
[39] Parini, Jay. “Of Bindlestiffs, Bad Times, Mice and Men.” New York Times. September 27, 1992.
[40] Sofroniou, Andreas. Freudian Analysis & Jungian Synthesis. (Morrisville, North Carolina: Lulu.com, 2011), 118; Jacobi, Jolande. The Psychology of C. G. Jung (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd, 1951), 141-142.
[41] Jung, C. G. Collected Works of C. G. Jung Vol 9 part1: Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. Edited and translated by Gerhard Adler & R. F. C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 216; “Wise Old Man.” Sharp, Daryl. Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms & Concepts. (Toronto: Inner City Books, 1991).
[42] C. G. Jung. Collected Works, Vol. 9 part 1: Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. Edited and translated by Gerhard Adler & R. F. C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 35.
[43] “Wise Old Man.” Sharp, Daryl. Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms & Concepts. (Toronto: Inner City Books, 1991); “The Wise Old Man: Archetype Anatomy.” Envision your Evolution: Contemporary Psychology. https://www.envisionyourevolution.com/analytical-psychology/the-wise-old-man-archetype-anatomy/1795/
[44] “The Wise Old Man: Archetype Anatomy.” Envision your Evolution: Contemporary Psychology. https://www.envisionyourevolution.com/analytical-psychology/the-wise-old-man-archetype-anatomy/1795/
[45] Jacobi, Jolande. The Psychology of C. G. Jung (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd, 1951), 144.
[46] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Books, 1981), 256.
[47] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Books, 1981), 256.
[48] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Books, 1981), 256.
[49] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Books, 1981), 313.
[50]Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Books, 1981), 323.
[51] C. G. Jung. Collected Works, Vol. 9 part 1: Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. Edited and translated by Gerhard Adler & R. F. C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 349.
[52] Hart, Richard E. “Moral Experience in ‘Of Mice and Men’: Challenges and Reflections.” The Steinbeck Review. Vol. 1, No. 2 (Fall 2004), 40.
[53] Heisler, Verda. “The Transpersonal in Jungian Theory and Therapy.” Journal of Religion and Health. Vol. 12, No. 4 (October 1973), 337.
[54] C. G. Jung. Collected Works, Vol. 9 part 1: Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. Edited and translated by Gerhard Adler & R. F. C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 349.
[55] Woirol, Gregory R. “Men on the Road: Early Twentieth-Century Surveys of Itinerant Labor in California.” California History. Vol. 70, No. 2 (Summer 1991), 198; Mills, Frederick C. “The Hobo and the Migratory Casual on the Road.” Mills, Frederick C. Mills papers, AA.
Images:
1939 Movie Poster. Photograph by Jim Griffin. https://www.flickr.com/photos/30484128@N03/9341218831 Original image has been cropped.
John Steinbeck. McFadden Publications, Inc.; no photographer credited, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Steinbeck_1939_(cropped).jpg
Jung’s Concept of Individuation. H. Koppdelaney. flickr.com/photos/h-k-d/6984394425/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/
Steinbeck’s Hero: George. Sailko. “Commodus as Hercules.” Located in Capitoline Museums, Rome. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Busto_di_commodo_come_ercole,_179-192_ca._da_horti_lamiani_02.JPG CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons. Original image cropped and background darkened.
Lennie: George’s Jungian Shadow. Photo by Bob Price from Pexels https://www.pexels.com/photo/man-walking-on-floor-764880/
The Anima Archetype Embodied by Curley’s Wife. H. Koppdelaney. “Monster and Angel”. https://www.flickr.com/photos/h-k-d/8454306326/
Slim: Jung’s Wise Old Man. Dore’, Gustave.” King Solomon in Old Age” (1Kings 4:29-34) in The Dore Gallery of Bible Illustrations. (Chicago: Belford-Clarke Co., 1891). Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:087.King_Solomon_in_Old_Age.jpg
Individuation is an Ongoing Process. H. Koppdelaney. “Red Bag.” https://www.flickr.com/photos/h-k-d/8755118738/
This Jungian Reading Doesn’t Stand Alone. Lange, Dorothea. “Migrant pea pickers camp in the rain. California” Feb. 1936. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/fsa.8b38194
FYI:
This Book is Banned participates in the Amazon.com affiliate program, where we earn a small commission by linking to books (but the price stays the same to you). This allows us to remain free, and ad free. [
Our privacy policy]
Of Mice and Men: Self Learns, Discovers, Becomes.
J
ohn Steinbeck was familiar with Jungian psychology, so seeing it reflected in his work isn’t surprising. This interpretation is especially relevant, considering Steinbeck’s stated desire “to show not necessarily why people act as they do, but to show the psychological steps which precede and clear the way for an act.” [1]
Steinbeck described his “whole work drive” as being aimed at “making people understand each other.”[2] And, the understanding engendered by his novella Of Mice and Men runs several layers deep, which makes it a prime example of how novels are like a layer cake.
By that, I mean it contains several levels of meaning and perspectives of interpretation. Of Mice and Men addresses the human condition on the social/historical level, the mythological level, as well as through a psychological filter.
The first installment of this essay, It’s a Regular Greek Tragedy, examines Steinbeck’s book from a social/historical perspective. As a result of this reading, we gain a better understanding of the tragic human cost associated with economies that create, and benefit from, a class of disenfranchised workers.
Part two of this essay, Am I My Brother’s Keeper?, considers Of Mice and Men from a mythological viewpoint. It explores Steinbeck’s work through the filter of the Cain-and-Abel story. This reading engenders understanding of the fundamental human need to be connected.
The following segment, the third and final installment of this essay, is psychological in nature. It delves into Steinbeck’s novella by way of ideas and concepts established by Carl Jung. Specifically, Of Mice and Men reflects a process known as individuation, the cornerstone of Jung’s psychology.[3]
…
John Steinbeck and Carl Jung
As noted above, Steinbeck was familiar with Jungian psychology. And, though he came to Jung’s works independently, Steinbeck spent a brief but important time with biologist Ed Ricketts and Jungian philosopher Joseph Campbell. They would meet frequently to discuss ideas and books, from poems by Jeffers, to the latest Huxley novel, to the essays of Jung. And, it was through Campbell that Steinbeck became familiar with the archetypes made famous by Carl Jung.[4]
Carl Jung is not only the founder of analytic psychology, he also developed the concept of the collective unconscious… not to mention those archetypes we hear so much about.[5] Jung described human beings as fundamentally a “psychic process.”[6] And the psyche, as Jung defines it, is the totality of mental processes between two fundamental spheres with opposing properties – consciousness and the unconscious.[7]
…
What is Jung’s Concept of Individuation?
“The unconscious,” Jung maintains, “is older than consciousness. It is the ‘primal datum’ out of which consciousness ever afresh arises.”[8] Jung further states that everything in the unconscious aspires to outward manifestation. That includes the personality, which he contends “desires to evolve out of its unconscious conditions and to experience itself as a whole.”[9]
This evolution is the psychic process that Jung maintains is at the core of human development. It’s referred to as individuation, and as previously noted, it’s the cornerstone of Jung’s psychology.[10] “The aim of individuation,” Jung specifically states, “is nothing less than to divest the self of the false wrappings of the persona on the one hand, and the suggestive power of primordial images on the other.”[11]
Ultimately, individuation is a dialectic process, a confrontation of opposites. And, this dialectic brings about interaction between the conscious and unconscious aspects of the psyche. These heretofore disjointed facets, then, stand together in living relation to one another.[12] Because, as Jung also notes, “one does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.”[13]
The course individuation follows, its guideposts and milestones, are marked by archetypal symbols. And, the shape and manifestations of these archetypes vary according to the individual in question.[14] That’s the psychological journey delineated in Of Mice and Men.
The term “archetype” is derived via Latin from Greek arkhetupon and means “something molded first as a model.”[15] But what is the archetype according to Jung? Archetypes are specific elements that exist at the deepest levels of the unconscious. They’re a matrix of inherited ideas and mental images which correspond to innate tendencies and modes of thought present in the unconscious of the individual.[16]
…
Steinbeck’s Hero: George
The first archetype we need to consider is the Hero. The Hero archetype symbolizes the unconscious self, and manifests as “the sum total of all archetypes.”[17] In myths, the hero is the one who triumphs over the dragon rather than being devoured by it. Accordingly, one can’t be a hero if they’ve never met the dragon. Neither can the person who once caught a glimpse of the dragon but pretends to have seen nothing. It’s only the individual who engages the dragon and was not overcome by the experience who acquires the dragon’s hoard, the “treasure hard to attain.”[18]
In this case, the hero’s challenge is to defeat the “monster of darkness.” The treasure attained by vanquishing this dragon is the long-hoped-for and anticipated triumph of consciousness over the unconscious.[19] And, Steinbeck’s protagonist, George, embodies the Hero archetype in this Jungian reading of Of Mice and Men.
George, therefore, is the unconscious self that encompasses the “sum total of all archetypes.” Other significant characters within Steinbeck’s novella (not to mention George’s psyche) personify specific archetypes that mark milestones in his psychological development. And, the story’s narrative delineates George’s journey through the individuation process.
…
Lennie: George’s Jungian Shadow
Integration of the personal unconscious is marked by the Shadow archetype. The Shadow constitutes hidden or unconscious aspects of our psyche (both positive and negative), those the ego has either never recognized, or has repressed. And according to Jung, “it is everyone’s allotted fate to become conscious of and learn to deal with this shadow.”[20]
Integrating our Shadow into consciousness involves recognizing the unconscious and often dark aspects of our personality as real and present. Needless to say, this act is essential for any kind of self-knowledge and psychological development to occur. And, this is of course, what individuation is all about. For, as Jung tells us, “When an inferiority is conscious one always has a chance to correct it… But when it is repressed and isolated from consciousness, it can never be corrected.”[21]
It’s pretty obvious which character signifies George’s Shadow – it’s Lenny. Of Mice and Men’s opening scene defines him as such. Steinbeck makes it clear that the two men are dressed exactly alike. They walk in shadow-like fashion, single-file down a path leading into the sycamore grove where the story begins. And, they continue to stay one behind the other even after the path opens into a clearing.[22]
Lenny also mimics George’s actions. After they’ve both had a drink from a narrow pool of water at the edge of the Salinas River:
[George] replaced his hat, pushed himself back from the river, drew up his knees and embraced them. Lennie who had been watching, imitated George exactly. He pushed himself back, drew up his knees, embraced them, looked over to George to see whether he had it just right. He pulled his hat down a little more over his eyes, the way George’s hat was.[23]
Between the identical clothing, single-file alignment, and mimicked actions, the shadow motif in Steinbeck’s introduction to his main characters is unmistakable. Lenny is clearly George’s Shadow.[24]
The Shadow archetype is frequently described as our “evil nature.” But, Jung himself states that the Shadow isn’t “decidedly evil,” or “wholly bad.” Rather, the Shadow is a projection of what is primitive within us, what’s “un-adapted and awkward,” and therefore offends against “propriety.”[25] Examination of these characteristics also reveals an emotional nature that manifests as an obsessive, possessive quality.[26]
Lenny fits this description to a T. As Slim points out, Lenny “ain’t mean.”[27] But, he “ain’t bright” either, and he definitely doesn’t fit in with the other ranch hands.[28] And, the Shadow’s obsessive nature is evident in Lennie’s penchant for petting soft things. It is possessiveness that not only leads to the demise of so many mice (not to mention one of Slim’s puppies), but is at the heart of George and Lennie’s troubles. Like the incident in Weeds, where:
He jus’ wanted to touch that red dress, like he wants to pet them pups all the time.[29]
And it isn’t malevolence, but the “uncontrolled or scarcely controlled emotions” Jung associates with the Shadow, that ultimately leads to the death of Curley’s wife.[30] Lennie isn’t bad. He’s just a simpleminded lout who doesn’t know his own strength.
That said, the episode where George sics Lennie on Curley does indeed establish Lennie as the embodiment of George’s “dark” impulses. This notion is bolstered by a couple of George’s remarks, comments that foreshadow the incident in question – especially when taken together. The first assertion is made to Slim, and the other to Lennie himself:
“Sure,” said George. “I seen plenty tough little guys. But this Curley better not make no mistakes about Lennie. Lennie ain’t handy, but this Curley punk is gonna get hurt if he messes around with Lennie.”[31]
Ya know, Lennie, I’m scared I’m gonna tangle with [Curley] myself. I hate his guts.[32]
According to Jung, acknowledging our Shadow is typically met with considerable resistance.[33] But, you don’t have to be a psychologist to understand that failure to acknowledge the dark aspects of our personality thwarts all psychic development. As mentioned above, dealing with our Shadow is an essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge to occur.
The Anima Archetype: Embodied by Curley’s Wife.
The Anima archetype (Animus in female subjects) within the individuation process is embodied by Curley’s wife. The goal, here, is to transform the Anima (in George’s case) from a troublesome adversary into a function of the relationship between an integrated consciousness and unconscious.[34]
But what is the Anima archetype? According to Jung, the Anima consists of the feminine aspects of the male psyche (as noted above, the masculine aspects of a female psyche is known as the Animus). Therefore, unlike the Shadow which is invariably the same gender as the subject, the Anima/Animus is always a gender other than that of the subject. Bearing this in mind, it’s no surprise that the Anima/Animus is typically not recognized by the unindividuated subject as part their own psyche.
Jung describes a male subject’s Anima as “the serpent in the paradise of the harmless man with good resolutions and still better intentions.”[35] She’s the seductress, tempting us to leave our unconscious undisturbed, and isolated from the conscious elements of our psyche. She embodies the “negative, unconscious, and unrealized aspects of the psyche to which a man responds with fear.”[36] As such, she is often seen as the face of absolute evil.[37]
All of this explains George’s extreme reaction to Curley’s wife, and his severe response to Lennie’s innocent remark about her being “purty:”
I don’t care what she says and what she does. I seen ‘em poison before, but I never seen no piece of jail bait worse than her. You leave her be… you keep away from her, ‘cause she’s a rat-trap if I ever seen one.[38]
She’s clearly the character who represents his Anima. And, the reluctance of unindividuated persons to recognize this archetype as part of their psyche, explains why Curley’s wife doesn’t have a name. Steinbeck’s answer when asked why he didn’t name her, “she’s not a person,” is consistent with this idea. Rather, as Steinbeck stresses, “she’s a symbol.” In keeping with the Anima’s power to thwart the unconscious’ incorporation into the conscious realm, Steinbeck further states that the only function Curley’s wife has is to be “a foil… a danger to Lennie.”[39]
Curley’s nameless wife very much functions as the temptress. She’s a compilation of stereotypic characteristics traditionally used to mark the seductress. Steinbeck describes her as having “full, rouged lips,” “heavily made-up” eyes, and classically suggestive red fingernails. She sports red mules embellished with ostrich feathers at the instep, slippers that suggest their seductive removal rather than practical purpose for a life on the ranch. And though she enters the bunkhouse ostensibly looking for Curley, she moves her body in a way that suggests she’s looking for something besides her husband.
When the Anima (or Animus) is recognized and revealed it no longer functions from the unconscious, and we’re able to incorporate it into our conscious realm. As rendering the Shadow conscious makes knowledge of our dark aspects possible, Jung maintains that making the Anima/Animus conscious enables us to gain knowledge of the contrasexual (aspects of the so-called “opposite” sex) within our psyche. This turn of events clearly enriches the contents of our consciousness to a large degree – and in doing so, broadens our personality.[40]
…
Slim: Jung’s Wise Old Man
The Wise Old Man is an archetype of spirit, which Jung describes as a mana-personality. Mana is a Melanesian word that refers to the strong spiritual quality within gods and sacred objects. Jung applies this term to the burgeoning effect assimilating unconscious elements has on the individual psyche, especially contents associated with the Anima/Animus.[41]
The Wise Old Man is a symbol of power and wisdom. He’s the enlightener, a psychopomp. He’s a master and teacher. And often, he takes the shape of a priest, monarch, or some other person possessing authority.[42]
As the name indicates, the Wise Old Man has great foresight. He provides advice and measured guidance to help the Hero in their quest. But, he does so in a way that lets the Hero choose their own path toward destiny.[43]
Engaging this archetype facilitates the capacity for meaningful reflection and introspection, to be aware and accepting of our feelings, thoughts, and actions without any judgement.[44] And, making the contents which constitute this archetype conscious signifies the first perception of our own unique personality.[45]
Steinbeck’s muleskinner, Slim, constitutes Jung’s Wise Old Man archetype. Consistent with this archetype’s tendency to be an authority figure, Slim is described as “prince of the ranch.” Steinbeck notes that, all talk stops when Slim speaks. He further states that Slim’s authority in the bunkhouse is “so great that his word is taken on any subject, be it politics or love.”[46]
In keeping with the wisdom this archetype symbolizes, Slim’s ear is described as “hear[ing] more than was said to him.” His unhurried speech has “overtones not of thought, but of understanding beyond thought.” And Steinbeck’s description of Slim’s hands associates the muleskinner with the spiritual aspects of the Wise Old Man archetype. For, they are “as delicate in their action as those of a temple dancer.”[47]
It’s surely no coincidence that Steinbeck describes Slim as having a certain “gravity in his manner,” as moving “with a majesty achieved only by royalty and master craftsmen.” And, he’s characterized as being “capable of driving ten, sixteen, even twenty mules with a single line to the leaders.”[48] Slim is just the guy to keep Steinbeck’s Hero moving in the right direction, toward wholeness.
It’s Slim who stresses to George that Curley will take his revenge on Lennie in the most painful way possible. Symbolically significant, he reminds George how much trouble Lennie/his Shadow causes, “like that time in Weeds.” Slim also points out that keeping Lennie/his Shadow locked up (in his unconscious) “ain’t no good.”[49]
…
Individuation Is an Ongoing Process
The deaths of Lennie and Curley’s wife signify that the contents of George’s Shadow, and those of his Anima, have been integrated into his consciousness. Slim, however, doesn’t meet his demise. Rather, Of Mice and Men ends with Slim leading George “up toward the highway.”[50]
This turn of events is consistent with Jung’s view that no one is ever completely individuated. Individuation’s goal of wholeness and a sound working relationship with the Self is a lifelong journey. Hence, the highway symbolism.
Yes, the goal of individuation as described by Jung is indeed: “to bring a consciousness that has hurried too far ahead into contact again with the unconscious background with which it should be connected.” But that’s only the first round. For, as he further notes, as a rule “these psychic evolutions” don’t keep pace with “the tempo of intellectual developments.” [51]
Steinbeck’s ending shows George continuing on this lifelong journey. Though it may appear that his dreams have been shattered, George is in a much better place than he was at the beginning of the novella. For his notion of owning a farm with Lennie was nothing more than what Jung described above as “imagining figures of light.” But now, George has actually succeeded in “making the darkness conscious.”
…
In Conclusion
As noted throughout the varied segments of this essay, the understanding engendered by Of Mice and Men runs several layers deep. This trip through Jung’s concept of individuation gives us insight into fundamental psychological development. This interpretation of Steinbeck’s work is certainly in keeping with his desire to understand people, to discover “what makes them up and what keeps them going.”[52]
…
This Jungian reading stands on its own.
But it doesn’t stand alone.
Jung maintains that the advanced stages of a person’s individuation must go beyond their personal psychology to encompass wider aspects of humankind. Therefore, individuation of the individual is indissolubly linked with the whole of humanity. And, remember, individuation is an evolutionary process. As such, it has the capacity to recapitulate through the entire human race.[53]
However, as Jung also notes:
The political and social “isms” of our day preach every conceivable ideal, but, under this mask, they pursue the goal of lowering the level of our culture by restricting or altogether inhibiting the possibilities of individual development. They do this partly by creating a chaos controlled by terrorism, a primitive state of affairs that affords only the barest necessities of life and surpasses in horror the worst times of the so-called “Dark” Ages. It remains to be seen whether this experience of degradation and slavery will once more raise a cry for greater spiritual freedom.[54]
Jung goes on to say that:
This problem cannot be solved collectively, because the masses are not changed unless the individual changes.
Which brings us full-circle. It’s frequently said on this website that literature is like layer cake. And, yes, Of Mice and Men is a prime example of this notion, one that reflects what Steinbeck refers to as the “wall of background” behind this work.
As oft-noted, Steinbeck wished to show “the psychological steps which precede and clear the way” for the action(s) a person may take. In the social/historical reading of Steinbook’s book, It’s a Regular Greek Tragedy, we gain a better understanding of the tragic human cost associated with economies that create and benefit from, a class of disenfranchised workers. Like the Tragedies of ancient Greece, we see that Of Mice and Men functions as a call to action, to rethink and improve the world. Jung’s quote about political and social “isms,” however, reveals how these economies create the psychological steps for inaction.
Jung’s observation clearly exposes the psychological exploitation of these itinerant workers at the hands of California’s farm industry. It also clarifies why, contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, itinerants’ life on the road was not simply a matter of personal choice.[55] This insight, in turn, explains the resultant isolation and rootlessness addressed in the second segment of this essay, a mythological reading of Steinbeck’s work (through the filter of the Cain and Abel story). Its title, Am I My Brother’s Keeper, is of course, the very question Cain puts to God.
The multi-faceted “layers” in Steinbeck’s work do more than simply pertain to each other. These readings augment, and enrich each other – which makes the understanding of our fellow human beings and the world around us deeper still. And finally, Of Mice and Men is indeed strong medicine, one that could be described as “a bitter pill.” But, as the Ancient Greeks and writers of the Old Testament knew, such medicine is necessary to continued social and emotional health.
That’s my take on John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men – what’s yours?
Check out this Discussion Guide to get you started.
.
Be sure to check out our other readings of this work:
It’s a Regular Greek Tragedy
Am I My Brother’s Keeper?
#banned #John Steinbeck #published 1930s #social commentary #Carl Jung
Share This Post, Choose a Platform!
Endnotes:
[1] Benson, Jackson J. The True Adventures of John Steinbeck, Writer: A Biography. (New York: Viking Press, 1984), 202; Wagner-Martin, Linda. John Steinbeck: A Literary Life. (London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd., 2017), 9.
[2] Essay title is taken from Octavia E. Butler’s Parable of the Talents. (New York: Seven Stories Press, 1998), 213; Gannett, Lewis. “John Steinbeck: Novelist at Work.” The Atlantic Monthly. (December 1945), 59.
[3] Schmidt, Martin. Individuation. The Society of Analytical Psychology: Jungian analysis and Psychotherapy. https://www.thesap.org.uk
[4] Timmerman, John H. “The Pearl.” In The Short Novels of John Steinbeck: Critical Essays with a Checklist to Steinbeck Criticism. Edited by Jackson J. Benson. (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990), 144; Benson, Jackson J. The True Adventures of John Steinbeck, Writer: A Biography. (New York: Viking Press, 1984), 227; Kordich, Catherine J. Bloom’s How to Write about John Steinbeck. (New York: Bloom’s Literary Criticism, 2008), 54.
[5] Darowski, Emily S. and Joseph J. Darowski. “Carl Jung’s Historic Place in Psychology and Continuing Influence in Narrative studies and American Popular Culture.” Swiss American Historical Society Review. Vol. 52, No. 2 (2016), 1.
[6] Jung, C. G. Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Recorded and Edited by Aniela Jaffe’. Translated by Richard and Clara Winston. (New York: Vintage, 1989), 3-4.
[7] Jung, C.G. Seminar on Children’s Dreams, 1938-39. In Jacobi, Jacobi, Jolande. The Psychology of C. G. Jung (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd, 1951), 24; Jeffrey, Scott. “The Process of Individuation.” CEOsage.
[8] Jung, C.G. Seminar on Children’s Dreams, 1938-39. In Jacobi, Jacobi, Jolande. The Psychology of C. G. Jung (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd, 1951), 24.
[9] Jung, C. G. Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Translated by Richard and Clara Winston. Edited by Aniela Jaffé. (New York: Vintage Books, 1989), 1.
[10] Jung, C.G. Psychological Types or The Psychology of Individuation. Collected Works, Vol. 6. (Great Britain: University of Edinburgh, 1953), 561.
[11] Jung, C. G. Collected Works, Vol. 7: Two Essays in Analytical Psychology. Translated by Gerhard Adler, R. F. C. Hull. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), 174.
[12]Jacobi, Jolande. The Psychology of C. G. Jung (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd, 1951), 123; Jacobi, Jolande. Complex/Archetype/Symbol in the Psychology of C. G. Jung. Translated by Ralph Manheim. (Princeton, N J: Princeton University Press, 1959), 115.
[13] “Hero.” Sharp, Daryl. Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms & Concepts. (Toronto: Inner City Books, 1991).https://www.psychceu.com/jung/sharplexicon.html; Jung, C. G. The Collected Works, Vol. 13: Alchemical Studies. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read, et al. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967), 264-265.
[14] Jacobi, Jolande. The Psychology of C. G. Jung (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd, 1951), 126.
[15] “Archetype.” Lexico. Oxford Dictionary. https://www.lexico.com/definition/archetype
[16] “Concepts of Archetypes at Carl Jung.” Carl Jung Resources. https://www.carl-jung.net/archetypes.html ; “Archetype.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/archetype
[17] Jung, C. G. Collected Works, Vol. 5: Symbols of Transformation. Translated by R.F.C. Hull. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), paragraph 516.
[18] Jung, C. G. Jung on Mythology. Edited by Segal, Robert A. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2020), 171.
[19] Jung, C. G. Collected Works, Vol. 9 Part 1: Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Edited and translated by Gerhard Adler & R. F. C. Hull. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 167.
[20] Jung, C.G. Collected Works, Vol 9 part 2. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read et al. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), 22; Sharp, Daryl. Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms & Concepts. (Toronto: Inner City Books,1991). https://www.psychceu.com/jung/sharplexicon.html; Jung, Carl. “The Fight with the Shadow.” In Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Vol. 10: Civilization in Transition. Translated by Gerhard Adler & R.F.C. Hull. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964), 223.
[21] Jung, C.G. Collected Works, Vol 9 part 2. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read et al. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), 8; Jung, C. G. Collected Works Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion – West and East. Translated by R.F.C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read et al. (New York: Pantheon Books, Inc., 1958), 76.
[22] Hadella, Charlotte Cook. Of Mice and Men: A Kinship of Powerlessness. (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995), 53; Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” In The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Publishing, 1981), 228.
[23] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” In The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Publishing, 1981), 229.
[24] Hadella, Charlotte Cook. Of Mice and Men: A Kinship of Powerlessness. (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995), 53.
[25] Jung, C. G. Collected Works Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion – West and East. Translated by R.F.C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read et al. (New York: Pantheon Books, Inc., 1958), 76.
[26] Jung, C.G. Collected Works, Vol 9 part 2. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read et al. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), 8-9.
[27] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” In The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Publishing, 1981), 263.
[28] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” In The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Publishing, 1981), 261.
[29] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” In The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Publishing, 1981), 264.
[30] Jung, C.G. Collected Works, Vol 9 part 2. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read et al. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), 8-9.
[31] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” In The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Publishing, 1981), 251.
[32] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” In The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Publishing, 1981), 260. Mice Men banned Jungian] [33] Jung, C.G. Collected Works, Vol 9 part 2. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read et al. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), 8.
[34] Jacobi, Jolande. The Psychology of C. G. Jung (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd, 1951), 131; “Anima.” Sharp, Daryl. Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms & Concepts. (Toronto: Inner City Books, 1991).https://www.psychceu.com/jung/sharplexicon.html
[35] C. G. Jung. Collected Works, Vol. 9 part 1: Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. Edited and translated by Gerhard Adler & R. F. C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 28.
[36] C. G. Jung. Collected Works, Vol. 9 part 1: Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. Edited and translated by Gerhard Adler & R. F. C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 27-28; Hadella, Charlotte Cook. Of Mice and Men: A Kinship of Powerlessness. (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995), 55.
[37] Jung, C.G. Collected Works, Vol 9 part 2. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Edited by Sir Herbert Read et al. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), 10.
[38] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” In The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Publishing, 1981), 255.
[39] Parini, Jay. “Of Bindlestiffs, Bad Times, Mice and Men.” New York Times. September 27, 1992.
[40] Sofroniou, Andreas. Freudian Analysis & Jungian Synthesis. (Morrisville, North Carolina: Lulu.com, 2011), 118; Jacobi, Jolande. The Psychology of C. G. Jung (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd, 1951), 141-142.
[41] Jung, C. G. Collected Works of C. G. Jung Vol 9 part1: Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. Edited and translated by Gerhard Adler & R. F. C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 216; “Wise Old Man.” Sharp, Daryl. Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms & Concepts. (Toronto: Inner City Books, 1991).
[42] C. G. Jung. Collected Works, Vol. 9 part 1: Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. Edited and translated by Gerhard Adler & R. F. C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 35.
[43] “Wise Old Man.” Sharp, Daryl. Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms & Concepts. (Toronto: Inner City Books, 1991); “The Wise Old Man: Archetype Anatomy.” Envision your Evolution: Contemporary Psychology. https://www.envisionyourevolution.com/analytical-psychology/the-wise-old-man-archetype-anatomy/1795/
[44] “The Wise Old Man: Archetype Anatomy.” Envision your Evolution: Contemporary Psychology. https://www.envisionyourevolution.com/analytical-psychology/the-wise-old-man-archetype-anatomy/1795/
[45] Jacobi, Jolande. The Psychology of C. G. Jung (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd, 1951), 144.
[46] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Books, 1981), 256.
[47] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Books, 1981), 256.
[48] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Books, 1981), 256.
[49] Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Books, 1981), 313.
[50]Steinbeck, John. “Of Mice and Men.” The Portable Steinbeck. Edited by Pascal Covici, Jr. (New York: Penguin Books, 1981), 323.
[51] C. G. Jung. Collected Works, Vol. 9 part 1: Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. Edited and translated by Gerhard Adler & R. F. C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 349.
[52] Hart, Richard E. “Moral Experience in ‘Of Mice and Men’: Challenges and Reflections.” The Steinbeck Review. Vol. 1, No. 2 (Fall 2004), 40.
[53] Heisler, Verda. “The Transpersonal in Jungian Theory and Therapy.” Journal of Religion and Health. Vol. 12, No. 4 (October 1973), 337.
[54] C. G. Jung. Collected Works, Vol. 9 part 1: Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. Edited and translated by Gerhard Adler & R. F. C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 349.
[55] Woirol, Gregory R. “Men on the Road: Early Twentieth-Century Surveys of Itinerant Labor in California.” California History. Vol. 70, No. 2 (Summer 1991), 198; Mills, Frederick C. “The Hobo and the Migratory Casual on the Road.” Mills, Frederick C. Mills papers, AA.
Images:
1939 Movie Poster. Photograph by Jim Griffin. https://www.flickr.com/photos/30484128@N03/9341218831 Original image has been cropped.
John Steinbeck. McFadden Publications, Inc.; no photographer credited, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Steinbeck_1939_(cropped).jpg
Jung’s Concept of Individuation. H. Koppdelaney. flickr.com/photos/h-k-d/6984394425/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/
Steinbeck’s Hero: George. Sailko. “Commodus as Hercules.” Located in Capitoline Museums, Rome. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Busto_di_commodo_come_ercole,_179-192_ca._da_horti_lamiani_02.JPG CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons. Original image cropped and background darkened.
Lennie: George’s Jungian Shadow. Photo by Bob Price from Pexels https://www.pexels.com/photo/man-walking-on-floor-764880/
The Anima Archetype Embodied by Curley’s Wife. H. Koppdelaney. “Monster and Angel”. https://www.flickr.com/photos/h-k-d/8454306326/
Slim: Jung’s Wise Old Man. Dore’, Gustave.” King Solomon in Old Age” (1Kings 4:29-34) in The Dore Gallery of Bible Illustrations. (Chicago: Belford-Clarke Co., 1891). Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:087.King_Solomon_in_Old_Age.jpg
Individuation is an Ongoing Process. H. Koppdelaney. “Red Bag.” https://www.flickr.com/photos/h-k-d/8755118738/
This Jungian Reading Doesn’t Stand Alone. Lange, Dorothea. “Migrant pea pickers camp in the rain. California” Feb. 1936. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/fsa.8b38194
FYI:
Share This Post, Choose a Platform!