The recent Beyond Gender conversation with Gurwinder Bhogal is ostensibly about social media, attention, addiction, and political contagion. Yet beneath the immediate discussion lies a deeper question about how symbolic patterns move through a culture and take hold of people’s imaginations. The language used in the episode is revealing. Social media is described as a “labyrinth”, a “global nervous system”, a field of “contagion”, a casino-like space built around “infinite scroll”, “stopping cues”, and the betrayal of one’s own reflexes. These are not merely technical descriptions. They are cultural metaphors. They suggest that what is happening in digital life is not just behavioural, but psychic. The medium is being experienced as a field in which desire, imitation, fear, longing, sacrifice, moral fervour, and collective identification are being orchestrated and amplified.
One of the most useful adjustments we might make to the discussion is conceptual. Contemporary commentary often reaches too quickly for the word “ideology” when trying to explain recurring social phenomena. But ideology may not always be the most precise term. In many cases, what we are witnessing is better understood as idealisation. That is, certain values, identities, emotional postures, or interpretive frames are elevated above all others and treated as morally self-evident. They cease to function as one value among several and instead become organising absolutes.
The issue is not merely that an idea is repeated. The issue is that it is sacralised.
This distinction matters because ideology sounds cold, intellectual, and programmatic, whereas much of what is now happening in Western media culture is affective, imaginal, and devotional. People do not simply assent to propositions. They identify with symbolic positions. They inhabit emotional scripts. They become attached to myths of innocence and violation, visibility and erasure, authenticity and repression. They enter moral dramas in which one value is idealised so strongly that competing goods become unintelligible.
The podcast’s discussion of empathy is a good example. Bhogal argues that empathy has been culturally overvalued, and that in networked conditions it can become punitive, tribal, and contagious rather than wise or humane. He describes it less as a universal moral good than as a spotlight cast on one person or group, often leaving others in darkness.
In this account, empathy can intensify hostility just as easily as compassion, because strong identification with one set of sufferers can legitimise aggression towards whoever is perceived as their oppressor. The argument is provocative, but it identifies a real imbalance in contemporary moral culture. Empathy has, in many circles, been idealised as if it were the sovereign virtue from which all right action must flow.
Yet no society can be sustained by empathy alone. Empathy is partial by nature. It moves towards the vivid, the proximate, the emotionally legible. It is easily captured by spectacle. It often privileges immediacy over judgement. Other virtues are needed to give it shape and proportion.
Protection is one of those virtues. Responsibility is another. Protection asks what boundaries are necessary for the vulnerable and for the common good. Responsibility asks what duties are owed not only to felt suffering, but to truth, consequence, continuity, and the social whole. Neither virtue is reducible to mere sentiment. Both require discrimination, steadiness, and a willingness to frustrate immediate emotional demand in the service of longer-term care.
In this sense, the problem is not empathy itself. The problem is its idealisation. Once empathy is enthroned as the supreme good, responsibility begins to look cold, and protection begins to look oppressive. The moral field narrows. To ask difficult questions becomes suspect. To resist a demand becomes evidence of cruelty. To introduce limits becomes a kind of sacrilege. This is why debates around gender identity so often become so overheated. They are not experienced as arguments about law, medicine, language, development, or institutions alone. They are experienced as tests of moral worth, structured by idealised feeling.
Jung is useful here because he repeatedly warns against inflation, possession by archetypal contents, and the dangers of collective identification. In Psychology and Alchemy, he writes that an archetype, while unconscious, “takes possession of the whole man and impels him to play a corresponding role”. He also warns that “an inflated consciousness is always egocentric” and incapable of learning, and that “no doubts can exist in the herd; the bigger the crowd the better the truth – and the greater the catastrophe”. These are striking observations for a digital age in which emotional certainties become socially rewarded and repeated until they acquire the force of revelation.
Jung’s point is not that collective life is unreal or that symbols should be dismissed. It is the opposite. Symbols are powerful precisely because they emerge from layers of psyche deeper than the individual ego. The collective unconscious is not a fashionable slogan in Jung. It names the transpersonal ground from which archetypal forms arise and through which human beings share inherited patterns of imagination, fear, hope, division, sacrifice, transformation, and return.
The self, in Jung’s account, is not reducible to the ego. In the Nietzsche Lectures, he describes the self as a “non-personal centre”, even “the centre of the collective unconscious”, and repeatedly speaks of “mental contagion” when ideas are not sufficiently differentiated from the persons or movements that carry them.
That language of contagion is especially important. In the podcast, contagion is used in relation to social media, political violence, fandom, and emotional transmission. In Jung, contagion appears when an individual or group becomes seized by an archetypal force that is not recognised as such. The experience then feels intensely personal and morally urgent, but it is also supra-personal.
The person is no longer only expressing themselves. They are expressing a pattern. This does not make the experience false. It makes it psychically overdetermined. It belongs both to the person and to the wider symbolic life of the culture.
That observation helps us ask a more careful question about gender identity issues. To what extent are people experiencing unique and individual psychic phenomena, and to what extent are they inhabiting archetypal and symbolic patterns that have become culturally available in a highly intensified form?
The answer is likely to be both. Some experiences will be deeply singular, bound to biography, temperament, trauma, family structure, embodiment, sexuality, fantasy, and developmental history. But the recurrence, recognisable scripts, repeated imagery, and patterned emotional grammar of many gender identity narratives suggest that something more than private experience is involved. The phenomenon is not exhausted by individual testimony because its forms of expression recur across institutions, peer groups, media systems, and generations with a symbolic regularity that points beyond the individual alone.
From a Jungian perspective, this does not justify dismissal. It calls for interpretation. Archetypal life often manifests through oppositions: masculine and feminine, body and image, inner and outer, suffering and transformation, exclusion and belonging. In Libra Novis, Jung repeatedly returns to the theme that wholeness requires encounter with one’s opposite and that the rejection of the “other” within leads to distortion, bondage, or projection.
The issue, then, is not that symbolic gender material appears. The issue is what a culture does with it. Does it hold such material reflectively, symbolically, and developmentally, or does it literalise it? Once symbolic tensions are literalised too quickly, psychic drama is translated directly into social command. Inner conflict becomes institutional demand. Archetypal language becomes policy language. The result is confusion not because symbols are unimportant, but because they are being handled without enough mediating thought.
This is where the podcast’s media analysis becomes especially valuable. The contemporary media environment does not simply communicate ideas. It accelerates symbolic possession. It rewards moral simplification, aesthetic intensification, and emotional synchronisation. Bhogal’s metaphors are accurate because they are psychologically dense. The “labyrinth” names disorientation.
The “global nervous system” names hyper-connection without digestion. The “Lethe effect” names forgetting and dissociation. The “infinite scroll” names the absence of symbolic closure. These are not accidental features. They describe a milieu in which people are less able to discriminate between what arises from the depths of the self and what has been socially amplified, mirrored, and fed back to them through the collective field.
Jung noted that objectivity requires the withdrawal of projections, and that emotional bonds often contain a “compulsion” grounded in unrecognised expectation and projection. That insight applies not only to personal relationships but to mediated moral life. Entire online publics can become projection-machines. They attach idealised feeling to causes, identities, and symbolic figures, and then defend those projections with extraordinary energy. Under such conditions, it becomes very difficult to distinguish care from possession, solidarity from fusion, or moral seriousness from inflation.
It may therefore be more accurate to say that we are living through a crisis of symbolic responsibility. We no longer lack symbols. We are saturated with them. What we lack are practices of interpretation strong enough to stop symbol becoming slogan, empathy becoming coercion, and identity becoming destiny.
The task is not to banish feeling, nor to pathologise every collective recurrence. The task is to recover proportion. Empathy must be re-situated among other virtues. Protection must be restored as a legitimate public good. Responsibility must be understood not as repression, but as an ethical discipline of mediation between inner life and social action.
The question is not whether people’s experiences are real. They are. The deeper question is how those experiences are formed, patterned, and intensified. If the collective unconscious is real in anything like the way Jung proposed, then no modern psychic phenomenon is ever wholly private.
We live in images before we live in theories. We inherit symbolic forms before we formulate positions. What appears to us as a spontaneous personal truth may also be a recurrence, a shared pattern, a culturally available drama seeking embodiment through us.
This need not lead to cynicism. It could instead lead to humility. Not every recurring pattern is mere propaganda. Not every idealised value is false. But whenever a culture starts treating one moral posture as unquestionably redemptive, it should pause. It should ask what has been neglected, displaced, or suppressed in the process. In the present case, empathy has often been asked to do too much. It has been idealised beyond its competence.
A healthier moral culture would ask empathy to work alongside protection, responsibility, judgement, truthfulness, and restraint. A healthier symbolic culture would ask not only what people feel, but what patterns they are living out, what metaphors they are inhabiting, and whose psychic drama is being enacted through them.
The great value of the Beyond Gender discussion is that it begins, perhaps unintentionally, to open this question. What it describes as media addiction and social contagion may also be the contemporary theatre of archetypal life. If so, the challenge before us is not only political or technological. It is hermeneutic and psychological. We need better ways of reading ourselves.
Leave a Reply