Shadow Government: unconscious motivations in our critiques to Paternalism from Carl Jung

Authors

  • Fernando del Mastro Puccio Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1599-7598

    Máster en Derecho por la Universidad de Duke, como becario de la Fundación Fulbright, y ganador del Justin Miller Award 2012 en la misma universidad. Actualmente sigue estudios de maestría en Estudios Teóricos en Psicoanálisis en la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (PUCP). Abogado y profesor de la Facultad de Derecho de la PUCP, donde dicta los cursos de Ética, Modelos de Abogados, y Derecho y Psicoanálisis, y donde se desempeña también como Jefe de la Oficina de Plan de Carrera y Bienestar. Certificado por la American Management Association para aplicar elMyer & Briggs Type Indicator. Correo electrónico: fdelmastro@pucp.pe

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.201501.020

Keywords:

Paternalistic State, Carl Jung, law and psychoanalysis, projection

Abstract

With the present paper we seek to use Carl Jung´s theoretical approach to the “Projection of the Shadow” as a framework to reveal posible unconscious motivations in our critiques to the Government´s paternalistic attitudes and regulations. Our proposal is that certain aspects of ourselves as individuals and society, which we do not like and do not accept (our Shadow), are seen exclusively as attributable to the Government. We argue that this unconscious dynamic limits our understanding of ourselves and prevents us to comprehend the essence of paternalism, both in our relation with the Government and in our daily life. We do not intend to discuss the logical or empirical validity of the arguments against this form of Government but to point out that those arguments might be influence by unconscious motivations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

2015-06-01

How to Cite

Mastro Puccio, F. del. (2015). Shadow Government: unconscious motivations in our critiques to Paternalism from Carl Jung. Derecho PUCP, (74), 397–412. https://doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.201501.020